LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

mnvxtwm+ 



ap« 




to. 



helf>„J.<£ 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 




' Christian Anthropology 



BY 



Rev. JOHN THEIN 

li 

Pastor of St. Martin's Church, Liverpool, O. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 

Prof. Chas. G. Herbermann, Ph.D., LL.D. 



MAR 2 1892 





NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

1892 



1 1/° 



COPYRIGHT, 1892, BY 

BENZIGER BROTHERS. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The Church has taught for ages that between the truths 
of revelation and the truths of science there can be no con- 
flict. The Vatican Council has solemnly repeated this teach- 
ing. On the other hand some men famed for scientific learn- 
ing and some famed for unscientific bluster proclaim that 
between faith and science no reconciliation is possible. 
Educated Catholics may well ask, How are such assertions 
possible? Still it is not hard to find the explanation. If we 
could ascertain at once what are the truths of science and 
what are the truths of revelation ,their comparison would 
end the controversy. But what are the truths of science? 
Science has no infallible mouthpiece. The ablest and sin- 
cerest men of science may be mistaken. Generations of 
scientists have fought in defence of error. For hundreds of 
years they taught that the sun moves and the earth is at 
rest. For centuries they spoke of heat and light as impon- 
derable substances. Linnaeus taught that species were immu- 
table ; Lamarck, the contrary. Cuvier, Von Baer, and Agassiz 
returned to the teaching of Linnaeus, and now Darwin and 
Haeckel, reviving the views of Lamarck, proclaim the 
mutability of species. Who is right? Linnaeus or Lamarck? 
Cuvier or Haeckel? When does a scientific theory become 
a scientific theorem, a scientific truth? Can one great name 
safeguard us against error? There is not a distinguished 



4 INTRODUCTION. 

scientist alive who will say in cold blood, "I cannot err." 
Is the consensus of all men of science a guarantee that their 
teaching is scientific truth? The history of Ptolemy's theory 
bids us be prudent in our answer. Surely it is more than 
hazardous to maintain that a theory or view against which are 
raised some of the weightiest voices in science is, without 
possibility of error, the scientific truth. 

And what are the truths of revelation? Some scientific 
oracles, not content with defining the truths of science, 
insist upon defining for us the truths of religion. No doubt 
they are very kind; but really we must decline their Grecian 
gifts. We look to the Church to tell us what are revealed 
truths. Reasonable men will find this reasonable. ^ When 
the Church has spoken, we know what revealed truth is. But 
there are hundreds of opinions on dogma and morals which 
the Church has neither approved nor condemned ; there are 
thousands of Biblical texts the meaning of which she has 
not defined. To be sure, we have the opinions of theolo- 
gians, we have what is called the received interpretation of 
the Scriptures, which is often but another word for theological 
opinion. But the views of theologians, however learned and 
holy, are not, of necessity, revealed truths. For scholars, 
who 'are not controversial scientists, it is not always easy to 
decide what are the truths of revelation. 

Since, then, it is neither easy to find the truths of science 
nor to find the truths of revelation in every case, it follows that 
it is difficult to compare them with each other. The pru- 
dent scholar, therefore, will not commit himself hastily to the 
proposition that there is between them an irrepressible con- 
flict. Where religion and science seem to be at variance— 
and during the past half century scientists (not science) have 
propounded many views seemingly at variance with Script- 



INTRODUCTION. 5 

ure— he will first ascertain whether the dicta of scientists are 
the truths of science, and next whether the assumed meaning 
of the Bible has been officially set forth by the Church. The 
former he will ascertain by inquiring whether the views in 
question are unanimously held by all reputable authorities 
in science or whether weighty voices are raised in contradic- 
tion; the latter he will easily ascertain by an appeal to 
Church History. If he finds that the Church has defined 
nothing in the premises, he may examine what is the most 
probable and the best supported theological opinion. 

Father Thein, in the present work, has followed the pru- 
dent, reasonable method we have just sketched. He has 
been an enthusiastic student of science, deeply interested in 
its progress. To anthropology above all— the science of 
man — he has given years of study and research. With 
patient toil and vigilant eye he has delved in biological, 
geological, and archaeological books and periodicals for what- 
ever could throw light on the nature, the origin, and the early 
history of man. At the same time he has never lost sight 
of the teachings of Scripture and the Church. But Father 
Thein never saw the irreconcilable conflict between science 
and religion which some writers see all around them. In 
his book he offers to us the fruits of his studies. He sets 
down the most important facts and theories in modern 
anthropology. He constantly cites the great masters of 
anthropological science. He discusses the views of modern 
thinkers, frequently by laying before the reader the diver- 
gent opinions of other thinkers of acknowledged merit. 
He gives title and page for his references. Thus, while 
freely giving his own opinion on the points at issue, he 
enables the reader to judge for himself what is and what is 
not demonstrated scientific truth 



5 INTRODUCTION. 

Father Thein's presentation of the theological side of the 
controversy is safe and conservative. It is based on the 
writings of such authorities as the Abb6 Vigouroux, Professor 
Hettinger, the Jesuits Pianeiani, Brucker, Comely, Knaben- 
bauer, Hummelauer, and other contributors to the " Stim- 
men aus Maria-Laach," " La Controversy" and the " Revue 
des Questions Scientifiques. " 

Though the reader may not in every instance agree with 
the author's judgments, Thein's " Christian Anthropology " 
is a mine of information, eminently useful to educated 
Catholics. It is a store-house of knowledge on every- day 
questions of scientifico-religious controversy, and a monu- 
ment of learning, of study, and of research. 

Charles George Herbermann. 



PREFACE. 



The condition of the world to-day is known. Everywhere 
we see infidelity rising up against God's revelation. The 
weapons which in former centuries were shattered and ren- 
dered useless, are diligently searched for in the ruins of the 
past, and are refurbished with new phrases and shibboleths, 
in order to be employed once more in the warfare against 
Christianity. New objections are invented against the Chris- 
tian religion. Men of science dig into the depths of the earth, 
and into the history of all times and nations, to find new 
weapons against Christ's Church. What history does not 
furnish is supplied by falsehood and misrepresentation. 

The Sacred Scriptures have been the special target of infi- 
delity. It is against them that rationalistic criticism directs 
the full force of its efforts. This has been the case since the 
foundation of the Church. From the moment paganism be- 
came acquainted with them it ridiculed them. Apion, the 
grammarian, mocked them in Egypt, and an unknown painter 
derided them at Pompeii. 1 After the religion of Christ had 
gained its first victories the attacks increased ; at the present 
hour they are numberless, and the Bible for many is nothing 
but a heap of contemptible fables. Christianity is declared 
to be a tissue of absurdities. 

The scientific arguments against the Scriptures, formerly 
rare and without much weight, have grown more numerous 
and important in our days, on account of the extraordinary 
progress of science. The adversaries of Holy Scripture dis- 

1 In 1883 there was discovered at Pompeii a caricature of 
the Judgment of Solomon, related in the Third Book of Kings, 
iii. 26, 27. 



g PREFACE. 

play and develop them, in order to break down both Faith 
and Revelation. In the name of geology, they attack the 
Biblical account of the creation of the world, pretending that 
it is irreconcilable with geological discoveries; in the name 
of astronomy, they maintain that Moses and other inspired 
writers attribute to the earth a role in the universe to which 
it has no rightful claim ; in the name of paleontology, they 
strive to remove the origin of our globe and of man far 
beyond the limits hitherto assigned to them ; in the name of 
natural history, they charge the Sacred Scriptures with many 

errors. 

The foregoing lines characterize in general the spirit of 
the modern materialistic and rationalistic schools. Entirely 
imbued with this spirit, the men belonging to these schools 
were forced by the logic of their principles to degrade man 
to a mere animal, to "the first among the anthropoids." 

Man, according to the modern evolutionary theory ad- 
vanced by the school of Haeckel, is a purely chemical prod- 
uct of matter, of atoms ; his soul is only the activity of the 
nerves and the brain. Like the rest of the world, man's 
existence has really no aim or purpose— " his origin is from 
the morass, he is wading for a short while in the morass, and 
again will become part of the morass. " Such is the morassy 
circle of man's destination. The summary of the material- 
istic doctrine is this : Between man and the irrational animal 
there is no essential difference— man is simply a more hap- 
pily organized animal ; he differs from the animal not in 
kind, but in degree. The human soul is a temporary quality 
of the brain, a result of man's development; it has no sub- 
stantial existence. Between the reason of man and the 
instinct of the animal there is no essential difference, but 
merely a difference of degree ; man, like the animal, is the 
sum of corporal dispositions and external influences ; hence 
the spiritual life of the individual is absolutely, completely, 
and eternally annihilated by death. This is the highest 
wisdom of modern materialistic anthropology! Karl Vogt, 
the Professor of Geneva, cries out: "Let any man overthrow 
this doctrine if he can ! ' 



PREFACE. 



Well, though we may not succeed in refuting all its details, 
we will show, at least, its inward groundlessness. 

Professor Huxley, borrowing from the inspired Book, 
which he rejects, one of its most striking figures, seems to pity 
those who "waste their lives in wishing to put the new and 
generous wine of science into the old utricles of Judaism." 
But we can assure Mr. Huxley, and prove to him, that the 
new wine of science, noble and generous as it may be, will 
keep just as well, yea, much better, in the old utricles of 
Judaism than in his own utricles or in those of his adherents. 
For these old Jewish utricles have become, by a Testament, 
in good and due form, the utricles of Christianism ; and just 
as the tumultuous waters of the ocean will be maintained in 
their old bed, which the hand of God has dug for them, so 
also will "the new wine of science," with all the immense 
progress of the natural sciences, be kept safe and pure in 
the utricles of the New Testament of Christianity. 

Our book is entitled " Christian Anthropology," in contra- 
distinction to materialistic anthropology. The latter stands 
in direct opposition to the former, and is not bounded 
by the same horizon, and has not the same extent. The nar- 
row, smothering, and often unhealthy dimensions of a theatre 
are sufficient for materialistic anthropology. It is an isolated 
branch of zoology— a chapter taken from natural history. 
Observation, material experiments, manipulation, the scal- 
pel, the microscope, statistics, measurements of the skull and 
the skeleton— this is all. In it there is no question of a soul, 
and the name of God is not even mentioned. The physical, 
physiological, and pathological, characters of man, the viscera, 
the muscles, the bones> are counted, and labelled with a 
nourish ; not even a convolution of the brain, a deformation 
of its bony envelope, is omitted ; all are minutely described. 
To materialistic anthropology man is the human animal, 
with patterns for all races and for all countries. This 
constitutes its entire science, and from this is drawn a con- 
clusion worthy of its premises: "Man is a mammal, whose 
organization, needs, sicknesses are most complicated; an 
animal whose brain and wonderful functions have attained 



PREFACE. 



the highest degree of development. As such, he is subject to 
the same laws as the rest of animals; as such, he also shares 

their fate." 

Christian anthropology, on the contrary, embraces the en- 
tire man, the soul as well as the body. It notes the great 
difference between man and the beast; it considers his intel- 
lectual and moral qualities as well as his anatomical and 
physiological characters, and, therefore, man's origin, nature, 
place in creation, antiquity, unity, immortality future life. 
Such is the complete plan of our " Christian Anthropology. 

Who will dispute the importance of the above questions?— 
questions so much and often so vehemently discussed m our 
days'-questions the importance of which our Holy Father, 
Pope Leo XIII. , so well understands when he writes : 

''The times in which we live require a knowledge which 
embraces not only the saered sciences, but also the philosoph- 
ical sciences, enriched by physical and historical discov- 
eries For the philosophical sciences our Encyclical 
Letter' ''jBtend Patris ' has pointed the road and the correct 
method A great number of eminent minds have made 
beautiful and fruitful discoveries; it becomes us the less to 
ignore them, as unbelievers make use of this daily prog- 
ress in order to forge arms against the truths of revelation 
Therefore, he who defends the Faith must devote himself 
to the study of the natural sciences more than m the past 
(Encyc. Letter, Feb. i 5 , 1882). Our late Plenary Council of 
Baltimore enjoins the same duty. 

The above words are especially addressed to the priest, 
but where is the layman, the student, or the professional man 
who should not feel sufficiently interested in these questions 
to acquaint himself more or less with the scientific subjects 
so often brought before him? Where is the man who is 
not likely to meet them every day, at every step, m a book, 
in a periodical, in a newspaper, in society, on his travels, m 
his ordinary relations with the world, even in the bosom of 
his own family? Questions, assertions, denials formulated m 
big-sounding words, accredited more or less by those whom the 
world calls "savants." Questions which, alas! only too often 



PREFACE. i i 

are likely to trouble and to destroy his belief, the peace 
of his heart. 

But it is especially the priest who should possess a more or 
less thorough knowledge of these scientific subjects, which 
are so often and so vigorously debated nowadays. Difficul- 
ties, arguments on a new discovery, on scientific phenomena, 
against revealed truth, present themselves sooner or later 
to every priest in the exercise of his ministry; they are 
propagated in books with high-sounding titles, in cheap 
and popular reviews and magazines; by swarms of demi- 
savants, or even by children who frequent the schools ; they 
may come up at any moment, perhaps unconsciously, in the 
bosom of Christian families or even in a lesson of the 
Catechism. 

Nowadays the priest who knows only his dogmatic and 
moral theology may be surprised and confounded by objec. 
tions formulated in entirely new language, supported by pre- 
tended fact or by a discovery wrongly interpreted. If a 
priest is ignorant or little acquainted with the weapons and 
methods modern men of science make use of to break down 
and destroy the Christian religion, he must not be astonished 
that his theology, his scholastic methods of argumentation, 
are not always sufficient to remove the uncertainty of the 
victim of pseudo-scientific fascination, who comes to him 
with his doubts and his cruel anxieties. 

The ordinary Christian may perhaps be able to rest content 
without inquiry and study; he may hold fast in simplicity 
and in faith to the teaching of his Church, and may not suffer 
himself to be shaken in his belief by all the objections of 
human science ; but deliberate ignorance would be sinful in a 
theologian and priest, and worthy of blame in one who wishes 
to be considered a man of education. 

Again, it is impossible for theology to maintain her rank 
as queen among the sciences if she proudly or timidly isolates 
herself. She may, indeed, keep her royal rank, but what 
avails a royalty which is acknowledged by no subject? 

Religion has suffered immensely, and faith is completely 
extinct in many, because they read infidel and rationalistic 



j 2 PREFACE. 

literature, and because there are none to instruct them in the 
truth. Do we exaggerate? Is our assertion unfounded? If 
the optimist could step outside of his sphere and throw a 
glance at the inside of the materialistic camp, he would soon 
convince himself of the necessity of studying the schemes 
and doings of the men who triumphantly cry out that " astron- 
omy takes the roof from over the head and geology the ground 
from under the feet of the old faith; " who describe the dis- 
coveries in the sphere of natural science in particular as ^ the 
knell of the Mosaic cosmogony; " who tell us that the Bibli- 
cal accounts, especially that of the creation of the earth and 
man, are "senseless" and a "lie." 

If such an optimist should look a little more closely and 
descend into the inferior regions of the intellectual and doc- 
trinal revolution, his discoveries would be no less striking, no 
less alarming. The freethinkers of the factory, of the work- 
shop, have also their logic, and a brutal logic it is. The 
materialistic doctrines of our time have torn from their 
hearts the belief in a God, their faith in a heaven and a hell. 
"Very well," they cry out aloud, "we want our heaven here 
upon earth. " " Do you want to make man happy? " says one 
of the materialistic chiefs; "go to the source of all happi- 
ness, of all pleasures— to the senses. " " We do not want self- 
denial " says another; "all we want is enjoyment, nymph- 
dances nectar and ambrosia ! If the world had never believed 
in a God, how much happier would it be ! " " They speak to 
us about heaven," says a third one, "about a future life; 
science has proved that there is no such thing, that it is an 
idle fancy, an illusion, and a lie. We do not want heaven ; 
we do not want a future life. All we want is hell, with all the 
voluptuousness that precedes it." In the face of such doc- 
trines it would be sinful and criminal to remain idle, to look 
on It is the duty of all, but especially of the priest, to 
inquire into the remedy that may help to stem the tide of 

infidelity. . 

Unfortunately, our English Catholic literature furnishes us 
with very few of these remedies ; upon questions of profane 
science we have hardly any works whereby we could instruct 



PREFACE. 



13 



ourselves or others. And what is to be more regretted, 
perhaps, is the fact that Catholics, as a rule, have little 
appreciation of this kind of literature. Very few of our 
Catholic publishers are willing- to risk the publishing of a 
scientific work, even if an author offers his work for nothing. 
Such works have so limited a sale that the publisher fears 
to lose money in getting out the book. 

With regard to this point, non-Catholic literature is far 
ahead of us, both in America and Europe. Its publishers have 
no trouble whatsoever in selling their books. They get out 
edition after edition, and the public reads them greedily. 
Unfortunately, many of these works are far from being scien- 
tific, in the true sense of the word. The most of them 
are more or less saturated with modern rationalism, if not 
with materialism. While there are still authors who seek 
to defend Faith and Revelation, the number of scientific 
writers is very small whose works are free from meddling 
with religion, as scientific works ought to be, and many an 
author is so imbued with prejudice that he never fails, when 
the occasion offers, to aim side-blows at the Church and her 
doctrine. Certainly this is much to be regretted, for no 
Catholic can conscientiously read such books. 

We have tried, as much as possible, to keep the present 
work free from the faults mentioned. The facts stated 
herein are not mere assertions, but are based upon empirical 
knowledge. The reader will find that we quote authors of 
different nationalities and creeds— Catholics and non-Catho- 
lics, rationalists and materialists. Our sole aim is to com- 
bat the errors and the false doctrines of the two latter 
schools, to defend Faith and Revelation against modern 
rationalism and materialism. 

For this purpose we do not rely so much on our own 
arguments as on those of authors who can speak with 
professional authority. In fact, the details of the subjects 
developed in this book have been drawn from standard and, 
mostly, recent works; from authors who have studied and 
written on the subjects herein treated. If we have not 
always given proper credit, we beg the author's indulgence. 



I4 PREFACE. 



In conclusion, we beg leave to say that if this book prove 

a source wherein the Catholic, but especially my brother 

priests can find something wherewith to stem the tide of 

infidelity, I shall feel happy; if it give rest to some souls or 

restore the peace of their heart, troubled by false science I 

shall consider this as my greatest earthly reward for the 

manv hours and years spent on this work. 

The Author. 




CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Introduction, 3 

Preface 7 

Table Showing the Successive Appearance of Living 
Things in Successive Geological Periods, . 4 . .23 

CHAPTER I. 

origin of life and its development. 

The teaching of Faith and Revelation on the origin of 
life. — Can science answer this question? — Spontaneous gen- 
eration. — Its history. — There is no spontaneous generation. — 
Experiments by Pasteur and others. — Was the first living 
germ brought upon earth by an aerolite? — Monism. — Did the 
" moneron" of Professor Haeckel ever exist? — The famous 
Bathybius. — Experiment by Professor Moebius. — Huxley at 
the Congress of the British Association. — Observations of 
Milne-Edwards and John Murray. — Haeckel defends a lost 
cause. — Monism in flagrant contradiction to experimental 
method and scientific evidence. — Conclusion 27 

CHAPTER II. 

DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

Positive science and the development of life. — Success- 
ive and progressive Evolution. — The system of Darwin and 
Haeckel.— Darwin's book on the " Origin of Species."— Crit- 
icism of Darwinism. — Darwinism restricted within certain 
limits is 'not necessarily in conflict with the Bible. — How- 
ever, it is an anti-Genesis in its tendencies.— Definition of 



11 



1 6 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Genus, Species, and Variety. — Variability is limited. — It 
never touches what is essential in the species. — Embry- 
ology. — Comparative anatomy. — Rudimentary organs. — 
Atavism. — "Natural selection" does not explain what it 
pretends to explain. — Both geology and paleontology confirm 
the permanency of species. — Neither the flora nor the fauna 
have changed. — Acknowledgment of Huxley. — Hybridiza- 
tion. — Hybrids do not perpetuate themselves. — Species are 
unchangeable. — The breeder and the florist may produce 
varieties, but God alone can create species. — Account and 
criticism of Haeckelianism. — Comparison with Darwinism. — 
Monism incapable of establishing the filiation of species and 
the origin of man. — The truth victorious • • 55 



CHAPTER III. 

ORIGIN OF MAN. 

What is man? — Whence does he come? — Different meth- 
ods followed to arrive at the knowledge of man. — Man's ori- 
gin and nature. — Teachings of Faith. — Scientific certainties. 
— Harmony between Faith and true science. — Pseudo-scien- 
tific systems. — Man's immediate ancestor. — Professor Mi- 
vart's theory. — Can it be maintained? — Conclusion. . . . in 

CHAPTER IV. 

MAN AND BEAST. 

Is man merely a perfected animal? — Darwin's " struggle 
for life." — How does it correspond with the wisdom, order, 
and omnipotent power of God? — The assumed change of 
inferior species into superior ones, by the struggle for life, 
does not explain their origin. — It is impossible to explain 
the origin of man from an ape by the struggle for life. — 
How did the last monkey acquire the faculty of thinking, 
speaking, walking on two legs, etc. ? — No trace of a higher 
development is found in any animal species. — If species 
changed in former times, why does this not happen in his- 
torical times?— Darwin's " struggle for life" is purely imagi- 
nary 135 



CONTENTS. 



17 



CHAPTER V. 

man and beast. — Continued. 

PAGE 

The structure of man and that of the ape. — Two kinds 

of distinctive characters. — Physical characters. — The head. 

The brain.— The foot and the hand.— Bodily development.— 

Rudimentary formations. — Embryological development. 

Universality. —Senses. —Psychological characters. —Reason. 
—Liberty.— Language. —Results of language.— Genius. — 
The Tasmanians.— Sense of shame.— Conclusion 150 

CHAPTER VI. 

man and beast. — Concluded. 

Instinct and intelligence.— Difference between the in- 
telligence of man and that of the animal. — Objections and 

answers.— The animal has passions and affections like man. 

Man is not the only animal that can speak.— Self-conscious- 
ness. — Individuality. — Abstraction. — Belief in God.— 
Sense of beauty.— Moral sentiment. — Destructive criticism 
of Darwinism by Professor Virchow . .182 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

Infidelity and the state of primitive man.— Man's primi- 
tive state was not a state of savagery. — His state is one of 
degradation and degeneration.— Savages in Europe during 
the last century.— The Fuegeans.— The Veddahs of Ceylon. 
—An damans. —Hottentots. —Bushmen. —Shameless exagger- 
ations.— A people in the mere natural state discovered 
nowhere.— The paradisiac state and original happiness men- 
tioned in the myths of all the nations.— Civilization in Asia 
when barbarism prevailed over Europe. — Really progress- 
ive development possible only through Christianity.— Man 
could not rise by his own powers from the state of savagery 
or from that of a helpless child to higher perfection.— It was 
unworthy of God to place man in the world a savage or a 
harmless child.— Only materialists believe this 206 



jg CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 



PAGE 



The antiquity of man and modern chronologists.— Are 
their calculations reconcilable with the accounts given by 
Genesis?— The genealogical tables. -Three lessons. -Conse- 
quences resulting from Biblical chronology. -Impossibility 
of fixing the date of man's creation. -Mankind very probably 
over 8000 years old. -New difficulty. -Supposed omissions 
in the genealogical tables. -Proofs of this supposition. - 
Admitting such omissions, mankind dates back more, than 
8ooc years. -The ten Chaldean antediluvian kings. -The 
value of the Chaldean sar.-Tabular view.-Theory of P.- 
Bourdais.— Conclusion • • • * * 233 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

The claims of science.— Antiquity of man according to 
o-eology.- Alluvions. - Peat-moors. - Stalagmites. - Anti- 
quity of man according to physical geography. -Antiquity of 
man as inferred from climatic changes. -These changes are 
exaggerated. -Valuable hints from ancient writers. -Anti- 
quity of man as indicated by changes in the fauna. -Alleged 
prehistoric animals. -We cannot draw a line between the age 
of the mammoth and that of the reindeer. -Man contemporary 
with many extinct animals. -Tertiary and quaternary man. 
-The age of the acerotherium, halitherium, and elephas 
meridionalis.-Quaternary man.-What is tertiary and what 
is quaternaryP-Powerful catastrophes. -Antiquity of man 
iudged by the progress of his industry—Five types of prim- 
itive man.-The ages of stone, bronze, and iron are not 
consecutive.-No necessity of extra-scientific hypotheses- 

Conclusion 



CONTENTS. jg 



CHAPTER X. 



THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES OF INDIA, CHINA, 

EGYPT, AND CHALDEA. 

Chronology of India.— Its great chronological pretend* 
sions are not justified.— Chronology of China. -Facts against 
the credibility of the Chinese chronology.— Chronology of 
Egypt.— Increasing difficulties in face of new information 
from the monuments. -Chief authorities.— Contradictory 
accounts. -The monumental lists. -Chaldea and Assyria 
offer more precise chronological figures. -Canons or epony- 
mous lists.— The account from the cylinder of Nabonidos — 
If it is correct, even the chronology of the Septuagint is too 
short. — Conclusion. 



33o 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Importance of the subject.— La Peyrere, the inventor of 
polygenism.-His system. -Criticism. -The Preadamites 
—Historical side of the question. -The strongest polygenists. 
are found in the United States. -The polygenists confound 
races with species.— Influence of climate and heredity. —The 
classification of the human species is not yet settled —The 
influence of climate and heredity upon man's body' is un- 
questionable.— Examples 

CHAPTER XII. 
the unity of the human species.— Continued. 

Preliminary remarks.— Color of the skin.— Dr. Malpighi's 
discovery. -Causes of different pigments in races -Char- 
acter of the hair. -Form of the skull. -Custom of some peo- 
ples to give the skull a certain form—No part of the human 
body is more subject to change than the skull —Causes — 
Examples—Cardinal Wiseman and the first series of gener- 
ations—Measurements of the skull— Relation between tal- 
ent and cranial capacity— Volume of the brain— Relation 



355 



20 CONTENTS. 



PAGE 



between intelligence and weight of the brain. -Comparative 
study of the human skeleton. -Different languages no argu- 
ment against monogenism.-Rapid increase of mankind— 
Geographical objections against monogemsm. -Origin of the 
Polynesians.-Of the Americans. -Conclusion 37° 

CHAPTER XIII. 

SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

Preliminary remarks. -Anatomical organization of man. 
-Inner organs—Man not confined to one kind °f food.- 
Interracial fecundity.-Examples.-Man a cosmopolite. -Ml 
men endowed with intelligence and reason. -All are social 
beings—All endued with speech and free-will— AH are re- _ 
ligious— American Indians— Negroes— Conclusion. . . .423 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE DELUGE AND THE TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

Meaning of the word deluge-The Biblical account of 
the Deluge of Noe confirmed by universal tradition— 1 ra- 
Stions in Asia.-Egypt.-Chaldea -Theaccountof Berosus . 
-Its striking resemblance with that of Genesis— Is Ararat 
Armenia?-Poem of Izdhubar claimed to be anterior to Abra- 
ham-Comparison-Legends of the Deluge among other 
nations— Account of the Arameans— Hindoos— Iranians.- 
Aryan races— American traditions— Conclusion 43° 

CHAPTER XV. 

GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

Geology has no facts that are at variance with the tradi- 
tion of the Deluge-Geological facts-Er ratio rocks-Bone 
caves-Osseous breccias. -Tufaceous ^stone-Geology 
confirms the Deluge-Universality of the Deluge.-™-* ■ 
systems -First . absolute universality— Second . restricted 
unTve™sality-This system is not in contradiction with the 
^cred Tex" -Arguments in its favor-Important question. 



CONTENTS. 2 1 



PAGE 



—Third: more restricted universality. —The Deluge did not 
cause the death of certain Mongolian and Ethiopian races.— 
Can such a view be maintained?— Conclusion 4 6o 

CHAPTER XVI. 

CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 

Why natural science cannot bring serious objections 
against the Deluge.— Linguistic and zoological objections.— 
Size of the ark and number of animal species.— Positive 
experiments.— Re-peopling of the earth by animals.— Causes 
of the Deluge.— Torrential rains.— Invasion of seas.— Sub- 
terraneous fountains.— Upheavals and depressions.— Combi- 
nation of the different systems.— Conclusion 4 g r 

CHAPTER XVII. 

MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL. 

Definitions. — Life.— Life-spring-. — Soul.— Organism.— 
Vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual, life.— The highest 
form of life, the soul, appea-s in man.— The essence of the 
principle of life.— What is an organism?— Without accept- 
ing a soul-principle, we cannot explain organism.— Nature of 
the human soul.— Teachings of Holy Scripture.— Three 
steps in the creation of man.— The distinction between 
the body and the soul and the intimate union of the 
two clearly expressed in Holy Scripture.— Hebrew psychol- 
ogy.— Man's soul is not a complex of his corporal organs.— 
Mental diseases prove nothing against the existence of the 
soul.— From corporal indications no certain conclusions can 
be drawn on the condition of the soul 4g6 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL AND ITS FUTURE LIFE. 

What will be the fate of man's soul after death?— Views 
of materialists.— Did the Hebrews believe in the immortal- 
ity of the soul?— The Book of Wisdom.— Daniel.— Notions 



22 CONTENTS. 



PAGE 



the Hebrews had of the soul's duration. -The Chaldeans 
also, the ancestors of the Hebrews, believed in the immortal- 
ity of the soul.— Funeral customs and burial places. —Proof 
of the Babylonian belief in another life.-Descent of Ishtar 
into Hades. -Egyptian belief in another life—Proofs 
of the Hebrew belief in the immortality of the soul.— 
Sheolof the souls.-Belief of other nations. -Etruscans. - 
Iranians.-Indians.-Greeks.-Romans. -Ancient Germans. 
—Other nations.— Immortality clearly revealed. -Future lite 
and the idea of God. -What is death ?-Nothing can be anni- 
hilated. -Only two things possible with regard to the human 
soul —Life the fundamental law of creation. -Without a 
future life man would be the most lamentable of beings.- 
Man's destiny from the standpoint of Christian doctrine. 
—Three factors.— Virtue must be rewarded and vice pun- 
ished.— This world does not sufficiently reward virtue or 
punish vice.— Conclusion 524 



TABLE 

SHOWING THE SUCCESSIVE APPEARANCE OF LIVING THINGS 
IN SUCCESSIVE GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. 



For the better understanding of certain facts treated in this book we give 
the following table, compiled from the second edition of the " Manual of 
Paleontology " of Prof. Alleyne Nicholson, one of the greatest living authori- 
ties on ancient life in Great Britain. It shows the succession of plant and 
animal life in the world as far as at present known. The oldest rocks are 
naturally placed last, the others in the order of superposition. 

CENOZOIC, OR NEW LIFE. 

Post Tertiary (that is, from the Tertiary up to the 
present era). — Man, sheep and goats, cave lions, huge 
kangaroos. 

Pliocene. — Swordfish, walrus, hares. The Tertiary 
vegetable world (including the rocks to the Eocene) 
was very much the same as it now is in hot and 
temperate climates. 

Miocene.— Oxen, elephants, bears, land tortoises (one 
in India 20 feet long and 7 feet broad), sloths, 
whales, sperm-whales, dolphins, rhinoceros, tapirs, 
camels, seals. Beasts of prey abounded. Beavers. 
Lichens. 

Eocene.— Deer. Beasts of prey begin. Dogs, rats, 
mice, bats, lemurs, animals related to the horse, to 
the pig, to the tapir, to the whale. Snakes, croco- 
diles. Mammalia begin to abound. Sturgeon. Frogs 
and toads, newts and salamanders. Pillworts. 



24 TABLE OF GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. 

MESOZOIC, OR MIDDLE LIFE. 

Cretaceous (Chalk) .—Fishes with bony skeletons begin 
to appear. True sharks, huge lizards (75 feet long in 
some cases), crocodiles (America), gigantic extinct 
reptiles of the lias continue. Toothed birds. No mam- 
malia are found as yet in chalk. First certain appear- 
ance of trees like the trees of our own temperate 
reg ions— the oak, beech, fig, poplar, walnut, willow, 
alder, etc. ; also palms. 

Oolite, or Jurassic (of which lias are the lowest rocks). 
—Fourteen small mammals found in the upper beds of 
oolite. A single specimen (the earliest) of a bird. 
Turtles, lizards. In lias and oolite, gigantic extinct 
reptiles, the ichthyosaurus, plesiosaurus, megalosau- 

• rus, pterodactyle, and many others in great -numbers. 
In lower oolite, oldest known crab. Three or four 
small marsupial quadrupeds. 
Triassic— Three or four mammals found in the upper- 
most beds. Footprints, " in great part or wholly the 
work of reptiles." Crocodiles. A great animal, half 
reptile, half bird. Marked change in the vegetation 
as compared with that of the permian and carbonifer- 
ous periods. Abundance of cycads. 

PALAEOZOIC, OR ANCIENT LIFE. 

Permian.— First undoubted remains of a reptile, the 
protosaurus. Turtles and tortoises. Vegetable world 
nearly related to that of the coal measures: ferns, 
cone-bearing trees, etc. 

Carboniferous (coal, limestone, etc.).— Sea snails, scor- 
pions, spiders, millipedes, winged insects. The lime- 
stone in many places, over large areas and for a 
thickness of many yards, is almost entirely made up 
of the remains of stone lilies (crinoidea). The foot- 
prints of the cheirotherium (handbeast). Vertebrae 
of a large creature believed to be allied to a frog. 
Vegetable world much the same as that of the Devo- 



TABLE OF GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. 25 

nian rocks : fungi, cone-bearing trees, flowering plants, 
etc. , as in the Devonian, gigantic mosses and horsetails. 

Devonian. — Winged insects. This is the age of armored 
fishes, the scales ganoid or enamelled and hard as 
bone, forming a true armor. Plants abundant. Cone- 
bearing trees, ferns, tree ferns, club mosses, horse- 
tails, trees allied to our hardwood trees. Representa- 
tives of almost all the great groups of plants which 
grow at present flourished in this age. 

Silurian. — Starfish, sea-urchins, creatures allied to 
sharks, stone lilies, tribolites. Bivalve shells related 
to oysters, cockles, etc., abound. 

Lower Silurian. — Worm-like creatures, cuttlefish, crea- 
tures allied to nautilus, corals, zoophites, stone lilies. 
Seaweeds, ferns, horsetails, club mosses, a cone-bear- 
ing tree (allied to the pines), trees allied to the cone- 
bearers and to cycads. 

Cambrian.— Stone lilies, bivalve shells, shells like 
whelks, limpets, etc. Crustaceans of a low type 
allied to shrimps. Possibly seaweeds. 

HURONIAN. 

Laurentian. — Eozoon. It is, however, greatly ques- 
tioned whether this is an organism. 



CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. 



CHAPTER I. 
ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

The teaching of Faith and Revelation on the origin of life.— Can 
science answer this question?— Spontaneous generation.— Its 
history.— There is no spontaneous generation.— Experiments 
by Pasteur and others.— Was the first living germ brought 
upon earth by an aerolite?— Monism.— Did the "Moneron" of 
Professor Haeckel ever exist?— The famous Bathybius.— Ex- 
periment by Professor Moebius.— Huxley at the Congress of 
the British Association.— Observations of Milne-Edwards 
and John Murray.— Haeckel defends a lost cause.— Monism 
in flagrant contradiction to experimental method and scien- 
tific evidence. — Conclusion. 

The origin of life and its development is a subject of 
vital interest to all. Still if questioned : What is life in 
itself? we must confess that we know no more about it 
than we know of matter in itself. However, we know 
something of the properties of matter, and also know 
something about the laws of life and its development. 
These questions have been frequently discussed in our 
day ; their importance is so apparent that we shall de- 
vote the present and the following chapter to them, in 
order to show the wild, reckless, and fallacious theories 
of some modern scientists, who make use of every 
primordial organism, to escape acknowledging God as 
the Origin and Creator of all life. 



2 8 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

i Faith and the Origin of Life.— What are the 
teachings of Faith with regard to the origin of life? 
The first chapter of Genesis tells us that life had a 
beginning, that God created the vegetable world and the 
different kinds of animals, and, lastly, that He created 
a man and a woman, in a manner different from that 
in which He created other beings or things. In the ac- 
count of the Deluge we are told that all men on earth 
were destroyed except Noe and his family, and that 
all mankind is descended from the three sons of Noe. 
Thus the origin, the first cause of life, is the same as the 
orio-in and first cause of all things. If we are asked : Is 
life due to immediate creation— to a special intervention 
of God or is it the result of an initial state— an effect 
of laws' primitively established, developed under favor- 
able circumstances, determined by the Creator? we an- 
swer- Faith does not prescribe, nor the Bible teach 
anything in regard to this. The dogma of creation is 
simple clear, and comprehensive; but it leaves avast 
field open to human investigation and to the researches 
of biology, geology, and paleontology. 

2 Science and the Origin of Life.— Can science 
tjive us unquestioned information on the origin of life? 
Can it offer definite teachings? Yes, it knows two 
things with certainty; first, life did not always exist 
on earth, it had a beginning; secondly, it is a law, 
proved by experiment, that every living being comes 
from a being endowed with life. Geology and paleon- 
tology prove a condition of the earth when life did not 
and could not exist. They affirm with certitude that 
there has been an azoic period-that there is a prim- 
itive azoic, terrestrial crust. . 

The passage from death to life, from the inorganic 
to the organic on our globe, has a great scientific and 
doctrinal significance. It is the battle-field of material- 



SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 29 

ism.. It was so simple to affirm, the eternity of matter, 
of force, of movement. But things changed greatly 
when materialists were brought face to face with the sen- 
sible, undeniable facts of observation and experiment. 
Then the difficulties of materialism became quite grave, 
for after the formidable problem of the origin of atoms 
came the no less formidable problem of the origin of 
life. For a second time atheistic monism found itself 
caught in its own trap ; it must either acknowledge cre- 
ative intervention, or discover an acceptable theory — a 
truly scientific theory — to replace it. 

The scientists who are not afraid to acknowledge their 
inability to explain the origin of life on the globe, are 
not only by far the most numerous, but also those best 
authorized to speak on this subject. However, we will 
quote only from the masters of rationalistic science — the 
fathers of the materialistic school. 

Tyndall, the orator of Belfast, is astonished, and re- 
grets that Darwin and Spencer have slipped even slightly 
on the question of life. Nevertheless, the question has 
to be put, he adds; we expect a solution, and here 
it is : When we come to the bottom facts, life disen- 
gages itself from the material, all-powerful elements in 
the abyss of the past by some impenetrably mysterious 
action. Of course Tyndall does not slip "slightly" at 
all ; his solution is only a little more difficult, but not 
any clearer, when he appeals to an impenetrable 
mystery. 

'Science," says Huxley, "has no means to form an 
opinion on the commencement of life; we can only 
make conjectures, without any scientific character." Du 
Bois-Reymond, one of the foremost of the materialists 
in Germany, places the origin of life among the seven 
riddles which seem to defy experimental science. 
Virchow, answering Haeckel at the Congress of Nat- 



3 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

uralists, resumes the debate thus: "According to my 
opinion, we should simply acknowledge that m reality 
we know nothing on the question of the connection be- 
tween the organic world and the inorganic. We can- 
not represent a hypothesis as a certainty, a problem 
as an established theory." 1 Finally Darwin has the 
courage to tell us "that there is a certain grandeur in 
considering life with all its properties, as it has been 
given at its beginning by the Creator." 

3. Systems on the Origin of Life.— The diverse 
systems imagined to explain the appearance of life 
upon earth may be reduced to spontaneous generation, or 
heterogeny? by which is meant the production of an 
organic individual without parents (Haeckel) ; that 
is a brute body as antecedent, and a being endowed 
with life as consequent. This question has been studied 
from very different points of view. Some seek the so- 
lution of a purely scientific fact. Does spontaneous 
life exist in nature? An affirmative answer to this ques- 
tion does not of necessity exclude the idea of God, 
the idea of a primitive cause; the apparition of an 
organic being without parent, under favorable circum- 
stances, might result from the special actions of the 
creative power. Faith and Christian philosophy are un- 
concerned in such an investigation, whatever the solu- 
tion may be. 

Others— the monists— set up a double theory, scien- 
tific and philosophical. They attempt to explain the 
origin of life without a God, through the mechanical, 

1 Cf " Revue Scientifique," Dec. 8, 1887. 

■ The opposite of heterogeny is homogeny. The expression het- 
erogeny is inexact; some prefer the word agenesy, orabiogene- 
sis The formula " spontaneous generation" is equally improper; 
it would be more correct to say : spontaneous production of life or 
of organized matter. 



HYPOTHESIS OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 31 

inherent forces of matter only. For them, the living- 
atom is a spontaneous product or, rather, a necessary 
evolution of eternal matter. They deny every super- 
natural intervention of God, proximate or remote ; they 
teach the "natural creation" of living beings. 

These are two very different theses, which must be 
explained and discussed separately. Let us examine 
first the scientific problem. Is it possible to establish 
by observation or experiment the appearance of a living- 
being not coming from a being- already endowed with 
life? Positive and rationalist scientists answer: No. 
Only the latter make a reservation, pretending that 
what has not been established yet, may be established 
hereafter. We shall very soon learn the value of this 
pretension. 

4. Spontaneous Generation. — The history of the 
theory of spontaneous generation is very ancient and 
interesting. In the Biblical account of creation we read 
only that the origin of the vegetable and the animal world 
must be referred to the creative activity of God, and 
that God has taken measures for the reproduction and 
preservation of the various species of plants and animals. 
We are not told how the first organic beings originated, 
and still less how thenceforth the separate individuals 
should come into existence, whether by means of pro- 
creation from eggs and germs, or by other means also. 
The author of Genesis had no reason for entering into 
such scientific details. 

5. History of the Hypothesis of Spontaneous 
Generation.— The history of the errors taught in con- 
nection with the so-called doctrine of spontaneous gen- 
eration is very well fitted to show us to what illusions the 
human mind is liable. Aristotle explains the origin of 
organized beings by three modes of generation : they are 
viviparous, that is, produce young alive and completely 



32 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

formed; they are oviparous, or produce eggs from which 
come the young; and they result from spontaneous 
generation, that is, generation without parents. The 
description of the spontaneous generation of bees, by 
Virgil, in the Fourth Book of the Georgics, is well 
known. The fathers of the Church, and also the scholas- 
tics, believed in the spontaneous generation of a number 
of animals, and this belief was general up to a com- 
paratively recent period. 

The fathers and scholastics did not, however, derive 
this theory from the Bible, but as it was not opposed to 
the Bible they took it quite naturally from ancient sci- 
entific writers, especially from Aristotle. We know 
that they asserted that not only midges, fleas, lice, and 
other vermin sprang simply from, the earth, but also 
frogs, serpents, and mice ; the eel, also, in which Aris- 
totle could find no ovary, was supposed to have origin- 
ated from slime. Even in the seventeenth century the 
learned Jesuit Athanasius Kircher gives regular re- 
cipes for bringing animals into existence: "Take as 
many serpents as you like, dry them, cut them into 
small pieces, bury these in damp earth, water them 
freely with rain-water, and leave the rest to the spring 
sun. After eight days the whole will turn into little 
worms, which, if fed with milk and earth, will at length 
become perfect serpents, and by procreation will multi- 
ply ad infinitum." Van Helmont indicated the proceed- 
ings necessary to produce frogs, leeches, scorpions, and 
mice. P. Buonanni (1638-1725) believed that certain 
woods by rotting in the sea would produce worms from 
which butterflies would be engendered, which would 
finish by transforming themselves into birds. Sebastian 
Munster (1489-1552) stated that in Scotland trees are 
found whose fruit, wrapped in the leaves, when it falls 
into the water at a seasonable time becomes a bird, called 



SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND SCIENCE. 33 

"the bird of the tree." Aldrovandi (1522-1605) also 
considered sea-ducks the products of certain trees.' 

6. Spontaneous Generation a Dreadful Weapon.— 
Certainly, this doctrine of spontaneous generation fur- 
nishes a dreadful weapon to the materialists. Combined 
with "transformism," another doctrine of the material 
istic school, it enables them-so they pretend, at least 
—to explain the present state of the organic world 
without the intervention of the Creator. Indeed if 
beings, however small they may be, arise spontaneously • 
if these beings can develop and produce, in the course 
of time, various and more complicated forms through 
a series of successive transformations, as is generally 
maintained nowadays, then the mystery which hangs 
over contemporary fauna and flora disappears, without 
having recourse to an exterior power. 

Undoubtedly, there would yet remain more than one 
mystery to be solved. We might ask, for instance 
whether the wonderful laws which govern nature do 
not necessarily presuppose a legislator ? But materialism 
and atheism, which do not stop at such little difficulties 
would not fail to trumpet forth their victory. 

7- Spontaneous Generation Condemned by Exper 
mental Science. -Unfortunately for these doctrines 
the assertion that matter organizes itself so as to pro- 
duce life has been disproved in the progress of science. 
W hile transformism, pretty well shaken by recent in 
quiries and impartial observation, still retains a cer 
tarn probability, which misleads the imaginations of 
many, spontaneous generation is formally and judicially 
condemned by experiment and rejected by the immense 
majority of savants, as contrary to the most positive 
results of observation. 

'F.Hement,"L'OriginedesEtresVivants,",882 pn „ c «. v 
Hoppe-Seiler, - Ueber die Entstehung der Lebenskrafte^ *£?£ 



34 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

Its history is most interesting, for it shows how diffi- 
cult it is to uproot the false doctrines which spring from 
incomplete science and conform to popular prejudice 
When it had been proved that the relativ ely superior 
animals in the zoological series, for example rats fishes 
and frogs, spring from parents similar to ^fj^I 
sexual generation, the adherents of spontaneous genera- 
tion obliged to abandon this ground, fell back upon 
another, less known at the time. They pretended that 
Sects, at least, formed an exception to the general ru e 
They pointed to the bees which, though sexless, produce 
new swarms every year; the fleas, -bose numberless 
families invade in a few days the young stalks of on 
rosebushes, the so-called entozoa, intes nal worms 
which appear without apparent cause m putnfied meat 
Ind those which develop in the fruit of our orchard 
ana n the galls of our oaks without any one bemg for 
a long time able to give a reason for their appearance 
But then came the naturalists of the seventeenth and 
Shteenth centuries: the Dutch Swammerdam the 
SwS Bonnet, the Italians Red! and Vallisnien, whose 
fngenious observations obliged the adherents of sponta- 
neous generation to retreat for a second time. 

8 THE EXPERIMENTS OF BONNET, REDI, AND VALLIS- 

mE J. iBonnet proved that young bees all come from 
the Ls laid by a single individual, till then improperly 
caned g King, and since known by the name of Queen 
Red! had no trouble in establishing that the worms 
which fill putrified meat owe their origin to eggs laid 
L fifes and that the worms themselves are nothing else 
than the larvae of future flies. Vallisnien discovered 
tiiat the insects which infest our apples and pears are 
arL of a nocturnal butterfly, and result from the devel- 
opment of an egg introduced into the incrpient fruit at 
the time of the blooming. 



EXPERIMENTS OF SPALLANZANI AXD PASTEUR. 35 

Bonnet, who had made the flea his special study, 
in his turn showed that this insect owed its astonishing 
fecundity, not to spontaneous generation, but to a pecu- 
liar mode of reproduction ; to the strange fact that, during 
the season of heat, the flea gives birth to females only, 
all of which have the property of producing new females 
without previous sexual union. It has been calculated 
that, owing to this mode of reproduction, known under 
the name of Parthenogenesis, milliards of fleas can arise 
from one single individual in the course of one single 
season. But this wonderful fecundity, which each 
generation communicates to the following, disappears 
with the return of the cold in fall. The animal, here- 
tofore viviparous, now becomes oviparous, and from its 
eggs come males and females, which, by their union 
at the return of the warm season, will give birth to an 
almost unlimited series of generations exclusively female. 
Forced to acknowledge their error in the field of en 
tomology, the adherents of spontaneous generation or 
heterogeny, retreated upon the domain of the infinitely 
small animalcules. They pretended that infusoria and 
other microscopic animals can spring spontaneously 
if not from inorganic matter, at least from organic ele- 
ments which belonged to living beings. 

In defence of this argument they fell back on the un- 
known. On account of the imperfect means of inves- 
tigation, it could not be shown that reproduction does not 
take place m this manner. However, the laws of anal- 
ogy pointed rather to the opposite opinion. Until proof 
to the contrary was furnished, we had the right to be- 
lieve that the mode of reproduction established for the 
other beings of the zoological series applies equally to 
those inferior beings which can not be directly observed 
9. The Experiments of Spallanzani and Pasteur — 
The opinion of the heterogenists would have been legit- 



36 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

imate, had it been based upon correet facts. But, instead 
of being favorable to this opinion, observation has always 
opposed it. The experiments made since the last century 
by Spallanzani went far to prove that infusoria develop 
in a liquid only as long as this liquid is in communication 
with the air ; from which it is natural to conclude that 
they are the product of germs contained in the atmo- 

sphere. 

However, these first experiments were not absolutely 
conclusive. While Spallanzani succeeded in hindering 
the appearance of infusoria of a superior order, he failed, 
in spite of all his precautions, to check the appearance 
of animalcules of extreme smallness. It needed the 
labors of Pasteur to solve the question in a definite 

tti anner 

The experiments of this famous savant began in the 
year 1858 Provoked in some way by two zoologists, 
Professors Pouchet and Jolly, the one at Rouen, the 
other at Toulouse, Pasteur demonstrated to his col- 
leagues of the Academy of Sciences that no organized 
being however small, developed in a liquid when the 
germs existing in neighboring bodies are completely 
shut out For this purpose it was sufficient to raise the 
temperature of the liquid to 100° R. and to cork up the 
bottle which contains it with gun-cotton or amianthus. 
The latter substance, while permitting the outside air to 
penetrate during the cooling, will keep back solid parti- 
cles and, with them, the germs of living beings. Under 
these conditions, if the experiment is performed with 
some skill, not only no animalcules will develop m the 
liquid, but this liquid, though suitable for fermentation, 

will never change. 

Here is Huxley's description of some of Pasteur s 

experiments : 

" Pasteur fixed in the window of his room a glass tube, 



EXPERIMENTS OF SPALLANZANI AND PASTEUR. 37 

in the centre of which he had placed a ball of gun-cotton. 
. . . One end of the glass tube was, of course, open 
to the external air, and at the other end of it he placed 
an aspirator, a contrivance for causing a current of the 
external air to pass through the tube. He kept this 
apparatus going for four-and-tvventy hours, and the 
result was that a very fine dust was gradually deposited 
at the#bottom of it. That dust, on being transferred to 
a stage of a microscope, was found to contain an enor- 
mous number of starch grains. . . . But besides these, 
Pasteur found also an immense number of other organic 
substances, such as spores or fungi, which had been 
floating about in the air, and had got caged in this way. 
Pasteur also took one of these vessels of infusion, which 
had been kept eighteen months without the least appear- 
ance of life, and, by a most ingenious contrivance, he 
managed to break it open and introduce such a ball of 
gun-cotton, without allowing the infusion or the cotton 
ball to come into contact with any air but that which 
had been subjected to red heat; and in twenty-four 
hours he had the satisfaction of finding all the indications 
of what had been hitherto called spontaneous generation. 
... He then took some decaying animal or vegetable 
substance ... and filled a vessel having a long tubu- 
lar neck with it. He then boiled the liquid, and bent 
that long neck into an S shape, or zig-zag, leaving it 
open at the end. The infusion then gave no trace of 
any appearance of spontaneous generation, however long 
it might be left, as all the germs in the air were depos- 
ited in the beginning of the bent neck. He then cut 
the tube close to the vessel, and allowed the ordinary 
air to have free and direct access ; and the result of that 
was the appearance of organisms in it, as soon as the 
infusion had been allowed to stand long enough to allow 
of the growth of those it received from the air, which 



38 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

was about forty-eight hours. The result of Pasteur's 
experiments proved, therefore, in the most conclusive 
manner, that all the appearances of spontaneous genera- 
tion arose from nothing more than from the deposition 
of the germs of organisms which were constantly floating 
in the air. To this conclusion, however, the objection 
was made that if that were the cause, then the air would 
contain such an enormous number of these germs that 
it would be a continual fog. But Pasteur replied that 
they are not there in anything like the number we might 
suppose, and that an exaggerated view has been held 
on the subject; he showed that the chances of animal or 
vegetable life appearing in infusions depend entirely on 
the conditions under which they are exposed. If they 
are exposed to the ordinary atmosphere around us, why, 
of course you may find organisms appearing early. 
But, on the other hand, if they are exposed to air from 
a great height, or from some very quiet cellar, you will 
often not find a single trace of life." * 

10. Death-blow to Spontaneous Generation.— 
Many scientific men think that the doctrine of sponta- 
neous generation of infusoria received its death-blow, as 
Huxley says, by these experiments of Pasteur. This, 
however, is going too far. No doubt, most of the leading 
savants of the present age declare themselves decidedly 
against the theory of spontaneous generation, 2 and one of 
the defenders of this theory admits that those who agree 
with him form only a small and unimportant party, and 
that " almost all eminent men of science" are opposed to it. 

' Huxley, " On Our Knowledge of the Phenomena of Organic 
Nature," London, 1863, pp. 78 seq. 

2 Ehrenberg, R. Wagner, J. Miiller. Liebig, Brown, Virchow, 
Schleiden, Unger, Herm, Hoffmann, F. Cohn, and others. In 
France, Flourens, M. Edwards, Pouchet, N. Jolly, Ch. Musset, 
C. Bernard, Dumas, and others. 



what the heterogenists claim. 39 

11. Adherents of Spontaneous Generation 
Found Only in the Camp of Materialism. — If we 
still find more or less avowed sympathizers with the 
doctrine of spontaneous generation in the camp of con- 
temporary materialists, this must not surprise us. To 
deny spontaneous generation means to confess and con- 
firm the fact of original creation, and we can easily un- 
derstand that for many modern scientists, entirely im- 
pregnated with a materialistic spirit and infatuated with 
its progress, this is a very bitter pill to swallow. Cre- 
ation, they say, is a miracle, and, a priori, ^they declare the 
miracle impossible. It is useless to draw the conclusion. 

Materialism does not understand that this kind of rea- 
soning rests on a twofold error. In the first place, we 
may ask why a miracle should be impossible, seeing 
that He who laid down the laws of nature has also the 
power to restrict them., when and wherever He pleases. 
In the second place, it is false to assert that the creation 
of the first living being was a miracle properly speaking, 
because this creation was not against any law. The 
law which to-day governs the development of life com- 
menced to exist only with the living being itself. Surely 
there could be no exception to a law that did not exist. 

On the other hand, it would be a miracle were matter 
to organize itself, as the heterogenists wish us to believe, 
and bring forth beings without parents, for it is evident 
that would be contrary to the mode of reproduction estab- 
lished in the whole organic kingdom, wherever it has. 
been possible to study it. 

12. What the Heterogenists Claim in Our 
Days. — From what we have said, the most prejudiced 
ought to acknowledge that the hypothesis of spon- 
taneous generation has lost all probability and every 
claim to a scientific character since the famous experi- 
ments of Pasteur. Without admitting this absolutely » 



4 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

most biologists no longer contend that truly spontaneous 
generation, that is, the production of an organized 
being from purely inorganic matter, is a matter of 
course. All they pretend in our days— and this is the 
meaning they attribute to the word heterogeny — is, 
that organisms of an inferior order, for instance, the 
so-called fungi or ferment cells, can arise from organic 
matter in a putrified state. This doctrine, in the eyes 
of the advocates of spontaneous generation, has not the 
value of the preceding one, because it does not explain 
the origin of life. If an organism can arise only from 
the putrified elements of a prior organism, the origin of 
life remains unexplained. How did the first organism 

appear? 

To solve this really insurmountable difficulty, we are 
told that the first living germ was brought upon earth by 
an aerolite, that is, one of those small celestial bodies 
which circulate in space, and finally enter the sphere of 
attraction of our planet and fall on its surface. In fact, 
some savants claim to have recognized some mould on an 
aerolite, and conclude that this mould could only spring 
from the purification of organic substances, and that this 
purification supposes ferments; 1 that is, mono-cellular 
organisms. But this discovery, aside from being ques- 
tionable, has not the importance attached to it, for even 
if mould were recognized on the aerolite in question, 
there was not found on it the least cell, the least living- 
organism. Were there organisms in the aerolites, 
they, undoubtedly, would be destroyed either by the 
cold' of space, or by the intense heat which the 
passage of these bodies through the atmosphere pro- 
duces. It has been observed, indeed, that aerolites, 1m- 

» Ferment or yeast consists of very small vegetable cells, which, 
when they are placed in a liquid exposed to the action of the air, 
multiply by budding and produce fermentation. 



, MONISM AN IMPROVEMENT ON DARWINISM. 41 

mediately after falling upon earth, were burning hot on 
their exterior surface, whilst their interior was below the 
freezing point. After all, if it could be proved that life 
was brought upon the earth by a celestial body, which 
seems impossible, the problem of life's origin would be 
shifted, but not solved. We could always ask: How 
did it first appear on the aerolite? Now, if spontaneous 
generation does not take place upon our globe, and we 
trust that we have proved sufficiently that it does not, 
there is nothing that authorizes us to assume that it 
takes place elsewhere. 

The heterogenists driven to the wall, a certain num- 
ber of naturalists of the materialistic school, to whom 
the idea of a Creator is revolting, and who, nevertheless, 
are obliged to acknowledge the improbability of the spon- 
taneous generation of an organized being, claim, that 
mineral matter could at least under favorable circum- 
stances associate its elements in such a manner as to 
constitute one of those partly living substances which 
want nothing but organization in order to be endowed 
with real life, of which substances liquid albuminoid 
protoplasm, contained in vegetable cells, is a well-known 
example. This brings us to the theory of monism. 

13. Monism.— We observed before that the monists 
set up a double claim with regard to the origin of life: 
a scientific and a philosophical one. They attempt to 
explain life without a God. Their system is known 
under the name of monism (from the Greek "monos" 
sole, unique), and the aim of this theory is to reduce 
everything which exists to a unity; that is, to the 
material atom. 

14. Monism an Improvement on Darwinism. Mo- 
nism at bottom is merely a special form of materialism, 
an improvement on the doctrine of evolution. Darwin, 
who made transformism a. popular theory, as we shall 






4 2 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

see in our next chapter, never touched upon the ques- 
tion of how the first living thing came into being. Pro- 
fessor Haeckel, of Jena, thought that materialism had 
gained nothing, as long as we may believe in the 
creation of a single being, however small. Conse- 
quently, he made an attempt to solve the problem of 

the origin of life. 

In reality, Haeckel' s system, does not contain any new 
ideas. Like all materialists, he supposes that matter, as 
well as the laws which govern its transformations, is eter- 
nal. In regard to life, he holds that its beginnings 
were the most humble we can imagine. On a certain 
day, at the end of the geological period, undoubtedly 
during the Laurentian epoch, some atoms of azote, car- 
bon, oxygen, and hydrogen agglomerated together 
under exceptionally favorable circumstances, so that 
they constituted the first and most simple of organ- 
isms — the moneron. 

15. What the Monera Are.— These monera, im- 
aginary beings, which nobody, not excepting Haeckel, 
has ever seen, are organic beings of the most simple 
kind so the German Professor tells us. Their entire 
body, which during life is at most as large as a pin s 
head, is nothing more than a shapeless, mobile lump of 
ielly' (protoplasm). The monera cannot "exactly be 
called either plants or animals ;" " strictly speaking, they 
do not deserve the name of organism at all," 1 for they 
are not composed of organs, but consist entirely of 
shapeless, simple, homogeneous protoplasm. They 
propagate themselves by subdivision. When one of 
these little spheroids has attained a certain size by the 
assimilation of foreign albuminous matter, it falls into 
two or more pieces, which again, by simple growth, 
become like the parent body. 

1 Haeckel, " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte," pp. 164, 3Q5- 



HAECKEL AND THE FIRST MONERA. 43 

Although natural history is an experimental science, 
although it has no right to affirm anything except what 
it has verified by experiment, the Jena Professor never- 
theless affirms the occurrence of spontaneous generation 
in nature in spite of the contrary testimony of experi- 
ment. 

16. Haeckel and the First Monera. — The first ap- 
pearance of the monera is to Haeckel the proof of the 
reality of spontaneous generation. But the moneron, 
this living organism without form and without organs, 
produced only by the chemical combination of inorganic 
elements — this moneron is the product of Haeckel's 
imagination; it does not exist now, and never has 
existed. The most simple organisms known are not 
without form and structure; they have an organization 
sufficiently complicated; for instance, the plasmas of 
myxomycctes, as appears from the inquiries of Bary, 
Hofmeister, and other naturalists. Even the protoplasm 
of the highest cells present a distinct differentiation of 
solid and liquid in the form of ramifications of a mucous 
fluid, of small voids, etc. The amceba, which, so 
Haeckel tells us, are monera, possess not only a nucleus 
and a contractive vesicle, but produce in this nucleus 
small germinal grains, and in certain capsules elemen- 
tary tissues, which probably indicate sexual difference. 1 
Even the most simple of the monera, the Protamceba 
primitive which Haeckel describes as homogeneous and 
without nucleus— although the existence of amoebae with- 
out nucleus is denied by other zoologists— the Protam- 
ceba primitiva, to judge it by the drawing of Haeckel, 
is not homogeneous; it is a granulous substance, which 
thickens in the centre. 2 

1 Graf, " Verhandl. des Naturhistorischen Vereins des Rhein- 
lands," vol. xxvii., p. 200. 

2 A. Wiegand, " Der Darwinismus," vol. ii., p. 456. 



44 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

1 7. The Story of the Bathybius. — It is true, Haeckel 
quotes the Bathybius as a moneron produced by spontane- 
ous generation. The Bathybius plays an important role 
in the history of monism, and we must dwell on it for a 
few moments. Haeckel calls it "the most remarkable 
perhaps of all the monera." The famous English zool- 
ogist, Huxley, discovered it in 1868, and named it Ba- 
thybius Haeckelii, in honor of the German transformist. 
Bathybius signifies "which lives in great depths," be- 
cause this "protoplasm" was found in the ocean, at 
depths of 12,000 to 24,000 feet. 

"There, among an innumerable multitude of poly- 
thalamias'and radiolites, which people the fine calcare- 
ous mud of these abysses, the Bathybiuses exist m 
immense quantities. They are sometimes roundish, 
formless lumps of jelly, sometimes a gelatinous network 
covering fragments of stone and other objects. Their 
body, like that of the other monera, consists purely and 
simply of a plasma, without structure or protoplasm; 
that is, of one of those carbon albuminoid compositions 
which,' through infinite modifications, form the essential 
and constant substratum of the phenomena of life in all 
organisms. . . . Lately some one has contested the ex- 
istence of the Bathybius, but no one has proved that it 

does not exist." J 

Haeckel here defends a lost cause. The Bathybius, 
" one of the chief supports of the modern theory of evo- 

1 Haeckel, " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte,'' pp. 165, 166. 
Haeckel here reproduces what he had said in the first editions of 
his book, except the last phrase, which he added, and the interest- 
ing phrase which follows, that he suppressed; " Often small cal- 
careous corpuscles, discoidals, cyclops, etc., englobed m these 
masses of mucosity (of the Bathybii), are very probably pro- 
ducts of excretion." " Histoire de la Creation," by Letour- 
neau, p. 165. 



EXPERIMENTS OF MOEBIUS. 45 

1 

lution," 1 does not really exist; it has never existed. 
Huxley himself, who baptized it and gave it a fictitious 
existence, no longer believes in its reality. Here we 
quote his own words: " I fear the thing to which I gave 
that name is little more than sulphate of lime precipi- 
tated, in a flocculent state from the sea-water through the 
strong alcohol in which the specimens of the deep 
sea soundings which I examined were preserved." 2 
Du Bois-Reymond says, "Since then the scientific 
existence of the Bathybius Haeckelii has become as pre- 
carious as that of its supposed fossil model Eozoo?i Cana- 
dense" The Bathybius exists only in the dark depths 
of scientific superstition. 4 

1 8. Experiments of Moebius.— At the Congress 
of German Naturalists, held at Hamburg in 1876, 
Professor Moebius, of Kiel, delivered a discourse on the 
marine fauna and the expedition of the "Challenger," 
which he summed up as follows: "On the plains, sub- 
marine plains, from 12,000 to 13,000 feet in depth it 

was asserted, was spread the mysterious Ursckleim, the 
Bathybius. . . . Unfortunately, the fates have proved 
the contrary. The Bathybius, which harmonizes so 
well with the modern ideas of the origin of life, proved 
to be only an artificial product, a precipitate of gypsum, 
dissolved in sea-water by the alcohol in which the prep- 
aration was preserved. Whenever any one has exam- 
ined fresh preparations on board, it has been impossible 
to discover the least trace of the Bathybius." 

There was a moment of profound astonishment in the 

1 Haeckel, " Le Regne des Protistes," p. 77. Haeckel, in 
this work (pp. 77, 78), relates at length the history of the 
Bathybius. 

2 Huxley, "Nature," 19th Aug., 1875. 

3 " Ueber die Grenzen des Naturkennens." 

4 Cf. Zittel, " Die Kreide," p. 27. 



46 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

audience when Moebius, using such a simple recipe, 
made the Bathybius appear in a glass filled with sea- 
water, by adding thereto a certain quantity of alcohol. 1 

19. Observations Made by Milne-Edwards.— 
Milne-Edwards, summing up the researches made on 
board the " Traveller," where, he was promised, nothing 
should be neglected in order to find and study the 
Bathybius, says: "... Often in the middle of the 
vessel we have seen this enigmatical substance; we 
submitted it to microscopic examination, and we came to 
the belief that the thing does not deserve the honor 
which has been bestowed upon it, and the eloquent 
pages which have been consecrated to it. The Bathy- 
bius is nothing but a mass of mucosities which the 
sponges and certain zoophytes allow to escape on ac- 
count of contact with fishing instruments. The Ba- 
thybius, which has taken up too much of the attention of 
the world of science, should therefore descend from his 
pedestal and return to his non-existence in the depths 

of the sea." 2 

And, nevertheless, we still meet transformists who 
obstinately defend this thing— amorphous mucus, soft 
jelly, precipitate of gypsum or of diluted lime— trans- 
formed by Haeckel into the main support of the modern 

theory of evolution. 

20. Statement of John Murray.— John Murray, a 
member of the "Challenger" expedition, says: "I 
have known an eminent naturalist who, passing 
his fingers inside the vessel, said it was alive with 
protoplasm, and that it was the Bathybius which gave 
to his fingers its glutinous and greasy sensation. . . . 
I have seen several savants losing their temper in my 
presence when I told them that a mistake had been 

» Quoted in Haeckel, " Le Regne des Protistes," p. 93- 

2 " Seance de l'lnstitut,' Oct. 15, 1882. 



LAST ARGUMENT OF MONISM. 47 

committed with regard to this subject, and that Huxley, 
Haeckel, and others had been led into error. And 
these are the men who reject, a priori, every meta- 
physical or religious belief as anti-scientific." 

To finish with the Bathybius, let us add that this 
attempt of monism is the more unfortunate because, 
even if we admit the existence of " this most remarkable 
of the monera, endowed with all the vital properties — 
the main support of the modern theory of evolution," 
it would yet remain to be proved that it is the product 
of spontaneous generation. That question remains 
unanswered after, as well as before, the Bathybius. 

31. Last Argument of Monism. — The last argu- 
ment of monism, the most handy, if not the most logi- 
cal, is this : If inorganic matter cannot organize itself, 
owing to a combination of purely natural circumstances, 
we are obliged to have recourse to the supernatural, to 
the miracle, to God. Now, this is anti-scientific; this is 
impossible. The most certain results of experiment are 
counted for nothing, if they suggest the existence of 
God. The French translator of Haeckel, M. Soury, in 
one of his comments, frankly says : " According to many 
others, for they are unanimous on this point, there 
exists no other alternative to explain the origin of life. 
He who does not believe in spontaneous generation, or 
rather secular evolution of inorganic matter, must admit 
a miracle. This is a necessary hypothesis, which can- 
not be overthrown, either by arguments a priori, or by 
the experiments of the laboratory." 1 That is, it is 
superior to evidence, to philosophic reasoning, and to 
positive science. After all, "the limits of experiment 
are not those of nature ; one must see scientific horizons 
beyond them ; that which has not yet been established 
maybe established at some future day." But what will 
' Soury, Preface to " Preuves dtrTransformisme de Haeckel." 



48 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

then become of the principle of induction, which alone 
allows us to generalize, to ascend to the laws of nature? 
What will become of science when possible facts are 
set up in opposition to real facts, to facts that have 

been established? 

22 . Only One Choice Left.— This necessity to choose 
between experimental, metaphysical, and religious cer- 
tainty on the one hand, and the indispensable postu- 
late of monism on the other, was solemnly proclaimed in 
presence of Haeckel himself, by his master, a man little 
suspected of mystical tendencies — Virchow : "Not a 
single positive fact is known which proves that an inor- 
ganic mass has transformed itself into an organic mass, 
and, nevertheless, if I do not wish to believe in a special 
Creator, I must have recourse to spontaneous generation ; 
the matter is evident, tertinm non datur. When we have 
once said, 'I do not admit creation, and I want an ex- 
planation of the origin of life,' we set up a first thesis; 
but whether we wish or not, we must come to the second : 
Ergo, I admit spontaneous generation. But we have no 
proof thereof ; nobody has seen the production of organic 
matter; it is not the theologians, it is the savants who 
reject it. . . . If we have to choose between spontaneous 
generation and creation, to speak frankly, we savants 
^materialists) have a little preference for spontaneous 
generation. Ah! if only some demonstration would 
come to light. ... But I think we have yet time to 
wait. . . . With the Bathybius disappeared our greatest 
hope of a demonstration.' ' ' 

23. Haeckel Does Not Give Up Yet.— However, 
Haeckel does not wish to give up his pet theory. He 
reminds us that chemists have recently succeeded in 
doing what was asserted fifty years ago to be impossible ; 
that is, in producing carbon compounds, or so-called 
1 "Revue Scientifique," Dec. 8, 1877. 



HAECKEL DOES NOT GIVE UP YET. 49 

"organic 5 ' substances, as urea, alcohol, acetic acid, and 
so on, from inorganic substances. " Therefore, " he says, 
" there is every probability that sooner or later we shall 
succeed in producing artificially the protoid compounds 
or protoplasm itself. We may therefore assume that 
m nature also there may be formed from inorganic sub- 
stances first some simpler carbon compounds, and from 
these protoplasm capable of life. If this exists, it only 
needs to individualize itself in the same way as the 
mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself, and we 
have the moneron." 

But Haeckel himself admits that this must remain 
a pure hypothesis so long as it is not directly observed 
or repeated by experiments. 1 He adds, "that the 
process of the spontaneous generation of monera would 
m any case be very difficult to observe, and could hardly 
be verified with undoubted certainty, even if it still hap- 
pened daily and hourly." But we answer, it cannot be 
difficult to repeat the process by means of experiment, if 
it be as simple as Haeckel makes it. " The special con- 
ditions of existence, "under which conditions the Bathy- 
bms originates, according to Haeckel, may be artificially 
produced ; but yet he has not responded to the chal- 
lenge to fabricate a Bathybius. 2 Haeckel, if he studies 
carefully the experiments of Pasteur and Tyndall will 
have to admit that the origin of monera by spontaneous 
generation is impossible. 

Haeckel's theory that albuminous protoplasm can 
individualize itself into monera in the same way as the 
mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself in crystalli- 
zation, is rather venturesome. Organic cells and crystals 
are essentially different, inasmuch as "the cell not 

\" Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 309; cf. "Anthropol- 
ogy, p. 377. 
2 " Ausland," 1870, 1091. 
4 



5 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. ■ 

only grows from without, but primarily from within; 
it does not lose its activity like the crystal at the 
moment of its formation, but creates from within 
itself new forms like itself; and alike in its dimen- 
sions, its extent, and its duration in time, it is 
limited by its own individual formative and living im- 
pulse." ' K. E. Baer says: "Organic bodies are not 
changeable, but they are the only things that change 
themselves. The crystal and the rock are, no doubt, also 
exposed to final destruction, but the destruction does 
not come from within; damp, heat, chemical and 
physical forces in general help to wear them away. 
Were they placed in an isolated spot in the universe, 
they would last forever ; for what is lifeless cannot die- 
it is only destroyed by the outside world. On the other 
hand, organic bodies destroy themselves ; they are not 
only' subject to constant change, but^their whole de- 
velopment is a progress towards death." 2 

After what has been said, we may surely conclude 
that recent researches have shown that the theory of 
spontaneous generation is inadmissible even in the case 
of the most simple and smallest organic being ; or, in 
other words, it is scientifically proved that no organic 
being comes into existence by spontaneous generation. 
But may we not still assume that spontaneous gen- 
eration did occur in the early periods of the world's 

history? 

24. Did Spontaneous Generation Occur in Early 
Periods?—" Nowadays," says Burmeister, " when plenty 
of' beings capable of reproduction exist everywhere, 
there is no need that new ones should form themselves 
from dead matter; and perhaps the material from which 

1 Huber,"DieLehreDarwins,"p. 14; Michaelis," Haeckogonie," 

p. 100. 

2 Baer, " Reden," vol. i., 3 8 - 



SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN EARLY PERIODS. 5 I 

they could form themselves is wanting, as by far the 
greater part of the organic materials now existing is 
already contained in living organisms, and the only 
provision for new individuals appears to be by means of 
procreation. But in the early ages of organization all 
this was different, and therefore the course of generation 
was probably different also." ' 

Haeckel reminds us that at the time when, after water 
first appeared in a liquid state on the cooled crust of 
the earth, organisms were first formed, the immeasurable 
quantities of carbon which we now find deposited in the 
coal measures existed in a totally different form ■ they 
were probably for the most part dispersed throughout 
the atmosphere in the shape of carbonic acid The 
whole composition of the atmosphere, including even 
its density and electrical conditions, was therefore very 
different from what it is at present ; and in like manner 
the chemical and physical nature of the primeval ocean- 
its temperature, density, saltness,, etc. - must have 
differed widely from the present ocean; so that we 
cannot deny the supposition that at that time under 
conditions quite different from those of to-day spon 
taneous generation, which perhaps is now no' longer 
possible, may have taken place. 2 

25. We Have No Right to Suppose Spontaneous 
Generation in Early Periods.— However, even ad- 
mitting this possibility which Burmeister and Haeckel 
assume, their supposition is not scientifically probable 
Frohschammer justly says with reference to this- "As 
in these days, according to our experience, cells and 
germs only originate in organisms, we have no right to 
suppose, without certain proof and sure warrant, that it 
was different in early days, in the beginnings of organic 
' Burmeister, " Geschichte der Schopfung " p 287 
' Haeckel, " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 303. 



5 2 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

nature. This is a principle which is generally insisted 
on in natural science at the present day, and which, 
therefore, ought not to be discarded in this case without 

very good reason. " ' . 

26 Indignant Words of Quenstedt.— Men of sci- 
ence can make no objection to the following indignant 
words of Quenstedt. He says : 

" To the scientist, to understand means to see, and he 
can only draw conclusions on this basis. If, nowadays, 
even the smallest plant cannot come into existence with- 
out a germ, what thoughtful savant would venture rashly 
to assert that the whole beautiful vegetable and animal 
world, including man, has been generated only from 
dead earth? But to many the idea that the Creator has 
power to breathe life into the dead lump of clay is so 
unwelcome that they would rather embrace the wildest 
dreams in order to prove themselves apparently right 
Yes, they say, it is very easy to explain why the earth 
nowadays brings forth no living creature: now it ism 
its old age ; but when it was young things were different. 
It is amusing to hear these men, who usually subject 
to the sharpest criticism the slightest instinctive revolt 
of the mind against the abstract laws of nature, when 
they come to the beginnings of organic life, tell us how 
then in the bosom of the formations, every speck of 
mud' suddenly teemed with life, and describe the un- 
wearied creative power of the dead earth. Here we 
have an instance of the narrowness of man's spirit; he 
believes that nothing can exist but what he can conceive. 
When philosophers go this length, we may perhaps par- 
don them; for if they could no longer think, what is 
left to them? As students of nature, however, we may 
draw conclusions only from accurate observations ; but 
we must always define the limits, beyond which we 

1 " Das Christenthtim," p. 64. 



THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 53 

cannot go. If Unger is right in saying that not the 
meanest plant can spring from our soil without a germ, 
must not a sober investigator conclude that what cannot 
occur to-day under the existing laws of nature, can 
never have occurred? For it is upon this very fixity of 
these eternal laws that the whole structure of earthlv 
knowledge rests." ' 

27. Summing up of the Question of the Origin 
of Life. — To sum up, monism, in its most complete, 
most recent, and most painfully elaborated expression, 
is both anti-scientific and anti-metaphysical, in flagrant 
opposition to experimental method and rational evidence. 
Berthelot's words seem to have been purposely written 
to describe the method of Haeckel and his adherents. 
He says : 

"Positive science seeks neither the first cause nor 
the end of things, but it proceeds by establishing facts, 
through observation and experiment. ... It compares 
them, it determines their relations from the more general 
facts which are in its possession, and this is its only 
guarantee of reality, verified by observation and expe- 
rience. This is the chain of those relations which con- 
stitute positive science. . . . The ideal science (anti- 
science) has for foundation individual opinions and 
liberty." 2 

The Haeckelian monism is opposed to reason, for it 
implies a metaphysical contradiction. Creation being 
replaced by "the evolutional phases of eternal matter," 
we find ourselves face to face with the insoluble diffi- 
culty of the eternity of matter and of movement, or 
with a special force which would aggravate the diffi- 
culty by a new complication. 

To the above we add the judgment of some eminent 
savants, which proves how the pretensions of materialism 

1 " Sonst und Jetzt," p. 233. ■ " Principes de la Science." 



54 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

are disappearing before the experiments of science and 
logical deductions, like mist before a bright sun. And 
as often as those ingenious and shifting pretensions are 
brought forward as exact scientific results, they are over- 
whelmingly disproved by a more thorough application 
of science and reason. With regard to primitive gen- 
eration, Quatref ages says: 

" We see how careful these people, who brag about 
free science and claim for themselves its monopoly, 
who pretend to speak in the name of philosophy and 
reason only, should be in view of their instinctive 
aversion to revealed truth, which aversion leads them 
to reject every testimony, every doctrine, which is m 
any way connected with faith. It is they precisely who 
are the greatest, the most intolerant absolutists, and 
their infidel hypotheses, however venturesome they may 
be, are set up by them as dogmas." ' 

The following from Liebig, about the " apostles of 
materialism," is well known: "They are the opinions of 
amateurs, who, deriving their authority from their ex- 
cursions on the limits of the domain of natural inquiry, 
explain to the ignorant and credulous public how the 
world and the life therein really arose, and how far man 
has gone in his experience of what is highest." * Even 
in their own camp words of warning are heard, for Vir- 
chow has to admit : " There is a materialistic as well 
as an ecclesiastical and idealistic dogmatism. Certainly 
the materialistic is the more dangerous, because it denies 
its dogmatic nature and puts on the cloak of science ; 
because it presents itself as empirical, when it is only 
speculative, and because it wishes to extend the limits 
of natural inquiry to questions where it is evidently still 

incompetent." 3 

1 " Revue des Deux Mondes," i860, vol. xxx„ p. 809. 

2 " Chemische Briefe," pp. 203, 20.9. 

3 " Archiv fur Pathol. Studien," vol. ii., p. 9- 



CHAPTER II. 

DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

Positive science and the development of life.— Successive and pro- 
gressive evolution.— The system of Darwin and of Haeckel. 
—Darwin's book on the " Origin of Species."— Criticism of 
Darwinism.— Darwinism restricted within certain limits is 
not necessarily in conflict with the Bible.— However, it is 
an anti-Genesis in its tendencies.— Definition of genus, 
species, and variety.— Variability is limited.— It never 
touches what is essential in the species.— Embryology. — 

Comparative anatomy. — Rudimentary organs. — Atavism. 

'" Natural selection " does not explain what it pretends to ex- 
plain.— Both geology and paleontology confirm the perma- 
nency of species.— Neither the flora nor the fauna have 
changed.— Acknowledgment of Huxley.— Hybridization. — 
Hybrids do not perpetuate themselves.— Species are un- 
changeable.— The breeder and the florist may produce 
varieties, but God alone can create species.— Account and 
criticism of Haeckelianism.— Comparison with Darwinism.— 
Monism incapable of establishing the filiation of species 
and the origin of man.— The truth victorious. 

How did life manifest itself for the first time on the 
globe? How did it develop in the course of time? It 
is plain that these two questions are not the same. We 
have just criticized the systems, hypotheses, and errors 
which deal with the former question ; it remains for us to 
study the difficult problems which relate to the latter: 
How did life develop after it had appeared on earth ? 

28. Faith and Science on the Development of 
Life.— Before entering on the discussion of this question, 
we must state that it includes no special reference to man ; 



55 



^ 6 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

the problem of anthropology is reserved for future discus- 
sion in the following chapters, where man's origin, natural 
history, and destiny are considered. The only point we 
are going to examine here is : How did life develop in 
the animal and vegetable kingdoms ? Does faith tell us 
anything of this ? What does it teach with regard to the 
development of organic beings, with regard to the suc- 
cessive manifestations of life on earth? Nothing. 

What does science teach us in regard to the develop- 
ment of life? Has it anything certain to tell us on this 
subject? Yes, geology and paleontology, as we have 
mentioned before, show that since the beginning of life 
upon earth the organic ladder, both vegetable and animal, 
rises according to a law of constant progress, at least 
taken as a whole, if not in detail. Since what time has 
life begun to exist? Since what time has life begun 
to develop on our globe? Not only has science no 
certain answer to this question, but its estimates or 
guesses have no claims to probability, because it is very 
difficult to fix the duration of geological time, and every 
attempt to express it in figures must necessarily be 
based on the time that sedimentary rocks require for 
their formation. It is staggered by the fact that the 
natural forces, always identical in their essence, must 
have varied in their mode of action. All we know is, 
that the varied succession of the sedimentary layers and 
the unceasing transformation of the fauna and flora 
must have required considerable time. It is not too 
much to put it at millions of years. 1 

29. How Did Organic Life Develop?— All we have 
to keep in mind here is the fact, scientifically established 
by geology and paleontology, and affirmed by Genesis, 
that from the appearance of the first living beings 
until man's advent, life has developed according to a 
1 See Lapparent, " Traite de Geologic " 



haeckel's system. 57 

law of constant organic progress, taking it on the whole, 
if not in its details. How did this progressive develop- 
ment take place? It is very easy to understand the 
whole importance and interest of this question. There 
are two theories which strive to answer it. The first is the 
theory of independent, successive creations, that is, the 
direct intervention of the Creator, producing them in the 
different geological epochs. This is the traditional be- 
lief ; it proclaims the fixity of the species ; it is the preva- 
lent view in our days, not only in Christian exegesis, but 
also in science ; for experience shows that the transforma- 
tion of the essential qualities of beings, and transition 
from one species to another, is contrary to the laws of 
nature. The second theory is the theory of the successive 
and progressive evolution by transformation of living 
organisms, which rests on the hypothesis of the variabil- 
ity of species. It must be taken in its true sense as taught, 
and we must be careful not to confound the general idea,' 
or, as it is called, the "principle, "of transformism, with 
particular conceptions or systems, such as brusque trans- 
formations, or evolution properly speaking, which owes 
its origin to Haeckel, or slow transformations through 
organic adaptation— the systems of Lamarck and Darwin. 
30. Haeckel's System.— The system of Haeckel is 
also called "monism." As we saw in the preceding 
chapter, he maintains that there exists throughout na & - 
ture a great evolutionary process, which is one, continual, 
and eternal; that all the phenomena of nature, without 
exception, from the movement of the celestial bodies to 
the fall of a stone, from the growth of plants and ani- 
mals to consciousness in man, take place in virtue of the 
evolutionary process according to one and the same law 
of causality; in short, that everything is reducible to 
the mechanism of the atom. 1 

1 Haeckel, " Les Preuves du Transformisme," p. 16. 



eg DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

31. Darwin's System.— Darwin's system of descent, 
for which the special name transformism has been 
retained, explains the origin of organic species by 
slow, gradual, and successive transformations, so that, 
according to this theory, all the complex vegetable and 
animal organisms we see in nature come from simple or- 
ganisms. It admits as the beginning of organic life 
only one primitive form, or, at most, a very small num- 
ber of forms, from which all the present forms have 
descended. Finally, the "theory of selection" consists 
in attributing to the selection, which we are going to 
explain, the origin of species. It supposes the indefinite 
variability of species and their transmutability Species 
are not original, they say; they are produced like the 
varieties which we observe every day m the same 
species by changes and accidental modifications due es- 
pecially to selection. These have afterwards become 
fixed in such a manner as to perpetuate themselves. 
It is this theory, explaining by mechanical causes the 
transformation of species, which is Darwinism pure and 
simple The monists and transformists are generally 
Darwinists, but the real Darwinists are generally not 
monists or Haeckelists. 

The history of science and philosophy does not, per- 
haps, furnish a parallel to the influence exercised by 
the transforms hypothesis in the latter half of the 
present century. To slur it over, or to set little value 
on its influence in this or other countries, would be 
against all the rules of apologetic tradition. Moreover, 
it is often misunderstood and falsely interpreted in its 
doctrinal consequences by believers and unbelievers; 
therefore a critical exposition of the principal contra- 
dictory theses, considered under their different aspects 
and in their relation to faith, will enable us to solve 
easily the objections drawn from Darwinism and to 



LAMARCK AND DARWIN. 59 

dispel the phantoms which some conjure up at every 
step. 

32. On What Naturalists Are Agreed.— The 
great naturalists agree well enough in defining species. 
To Lamarck, Cuvier, BufTon, and Karl Vogt, the species 
is the reunion of similar individuals, issued from parents 
which resemble them as they resemble each other ; it is 
the individual repeated and continued indefinitely. But 
the agreement ceases as soon as there is question of trac- 
ing the origin of species. Are they invariable ? Are they 
the results of creative acts? Must we admit the axiom 
of Linnaeus : Tot numeramus species quot ab initio creavit 
infinitum ens? Are they variable? Can they descend 
by transformation from a small number of types or even 
from a single initial type ? Is the permanency of the 
species absolute or only relative and temporary? Here 
you have in a nutshell the questions raised by trans- 
formism. The original conception, though still quite 
confused, the first rough drafting of the transmutation 
theory, is due to the natural philosopher Maillet. And 
among his successors Lamarck is the deepest, Goethe 
the keenest, Haeckel the most impious, Darwin the 
most ingenious and by far the most popular. 

33. Lamarckand Darwin.— " It is not useless, "wrote 
Lamarck in his " Philosophie Zoologique," 1809, just half 
a century before Darwin's book," Origin of Species," ap- 
peared, 1859, "to inquire whether it is true that species 
have an absolute permanency, whether they are as ancient 
as nature, and whether they existed originally such as we 
observe them to-day, or whether, subject to the changes 
of surroundings which might take place, although very 
slowly, they have not changed in character and form 
in the lapse of time. " Struck by the difficulty which the 
fixity of species presents— for they, so to say, pass the 
one into the other — Lamarck pronounced in favor of their 



60 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

variability. In order to explain their successive trans- 
formations, he invokes three principal factors, namely: 
" The phenomena of adaptation or the influence of ex- 
terior circumstances, the changes of which bring on new 
needs, which can only be satisfied by appropriate modi- 
fications of the organism ; heredity, the role of which is 
considerable, and in virtue of which every change pro- 
duced in the organization of individuals is transmitted 
by way of reproduction to their descendants; time, a 
necessary condition for the transformation of species, 
for these modify themselves only slowly and by insen- 
sible gradations.' ' 

Being published at an unfavorable time, the ideas 
of Lamarck passed almost unnoticed. The discussion 
which, like an echo, arose between Bory de Saint Vin- 
cent and the famous Cuvier, twenty years later, served 
to bring them into notice. The theory of descent was 
rejected by almost all naturalists, and the belief in the 
immutability of species was general when Darwin's 
famous book on the "Origin of Species" appeared in 
1859. The moment was favorable; the work was ap- 
plauded by some and sharply combated by others. 
The work of the English naturalist was the starting- 
point of a movement in favor of the doctrine of descent, 
which generally goes under the name of Darwinism. 
Thus it is the theory of the English savant which it 
is especially important to know in order to understand 
the sense and the bearing of transformism, and as there 
is hardly any question that has been more frequently 
examined than this, we will give the leading points as 
briefly and clearly as possible. 

34. Lamarckism Perfected by Darwin.— The first 
fact, which serves as a starting-point, are the established 
variations in the history of cultivated plants and domes- 
tic animals. Man transforms and improves breeds by 



LAMARCKISM PERFECTED BY DARWIN. 6 1 

selective breeding; analogous variations manifest them- 
selves under our eyes independently of any human inter- 
ference. Other factors affecting variation are climate, 
the surroundings of flora and fauna, the greater or less 
abundance of light, heat, food, habits, sexual impres- 
sions, disuse of organs or development of organs, which 
bring on true atrophy or extraordinary development, 
perfecting one or more special organs or features until 
they become fixed and perpetuated, etc. Darwin has 
composed an entire code : laws of adaptation, laws of 
correlation, of growth, of variation, of inheritance, etc. 
It is a " luxury of wheelwork " and of words, which adds 
to its scientific prestige ; it is a skilful amplification of 
Lamarck's first idea. 

A second formula, which has made this theory popular, 
is the "struggle for life; " struggle for the existence of 
the individual, struggle for the perpetuity of the spe- 
cies. The struggle will be the more destructive, the 
closer species and individuals are to each other, having 
the same habits and the same needs. The most oppo- 
site varieties will have the greatest chance to live, and 
thus will tend more and more to separate themselves 
from the common type. It has been proved that vege- 
table and animal propagation tends to increase according 
to a geometric progression, whilst the means of subsist- 
ence increase only in an arithmetical proportion. The 
consequences of this disproportion are inevitable; the 
more feeble, the less favored by circumstances, of neces- 
sity disappear in the struggle for life ; the stronger, those 
endowed with more vigor, alone will survive with the ad- 
vantages acquired. This is "natural selection," this is 
the ray of light which has transformed science and lit up 
in its depths the problem of the progressive development 
of life ; this is the God-machine which allows us to con- 
ceive of an end unconsciously pursued, infallibly attained 



6 2 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

(Vogt, Haeckel), and which is to replace the God of the 
ancient faith for a more happy posterity ! 

The wonderful results of natural selection are trans- 
mitted and perpetuated, thanks to another great factor, 
another great law hardly contestable— heredity. The role 
of this third element is of prime importance ; it explains 
the universal tendency in all forms of life to transmit 
and perpetuate themselves, as well as genealogical im- 
provements and perfections. Finally, the Darwinian 
theory imperiously claims a last factor of unlimited 
power, which is absolutely essential, and never fails to 
intervene to explain the crucial difficulties it meets 
with in accounting for the production of the first man 
from that original prototype which was the fruitful 
parent of all life. That factor is time. 

Such is in concise expression Lamarckism set forth 
and perfected by Darwin. The learned Englishman has 
enriched the original system with a great number of ob- 
servations and experiments ; he has completed it, or, in 
other words, transformed it, by introducing selection, 
which constitutes the characteristic factor of Darwinism. 
In the eyes of the public, and for a certain time, Darwin 
has supplanted Lamarck, whose superiority posterity 
will undoubtedly acknowledge. 

Having set forth the leading points of the Darwinian 
theory, we shall now examine them more closely in detail, 
and after that we shall consider the doctrine of transfor- 
mation as set up by Haeckel; our criticism, for want of 
space, must be short. 

35. Criticism of Darwinism. — In the first place we 
may remark that Darwinism maintained within certain 
limitations is not necessarily in contradiction with the 
Bible. "Suppose that the theory of Darwin," says 
Reusch, "were demonstrated by incontestable proofs, 
and that— a thing I regard as impossible— the natural 



CRITICISM OF DARWINISM. 63 

sciences would prove that all species of plants and ani- 
mals which have existed and which still exist can be re- 
duced to a few primitive forms, would there be a contra- 
diction between the Bible and the natural sciences? I 
do not believe it!" ] 

The Bible teaches that the universe is the work of a 
Creator, who has produced the world for a determinate 
end. This double truth can be reconciled with Dar- 
winism, and the Darwinists generally admit this. Lyell, 
the eminent geologist, says: "The ensemble and suc- 
cession of natural phenomena can only be the material 
application of a preconceived design, and if this suc- 
cession of facts can be explained by transmutation, the 
perpetual adaptation of the organic world to new 'con- 
ditions leaves the argument in favor of a design, and 
consequently of a designer, as powerful as ever." 2 ' 

Lamarck, who taught transformation before Darwin, 
expressly admitted the existence of God and His Provi- 
dence. 

"Among the false ideas to which the subject I am 
here examining has given place, I will quote the two 
principal. . . . The first leads most men to believe that 
nature and its supreme Author are synonymous terms. 
. . . It (nature) is in some manner only an intermediary 
between God and the physical universe for the execu- 
tion of the divine will. ... It has been supposed that 
nature itself is God Strange! men have con- 
founded the watch with the watch-maker, the work 
with its author. Certainly this idea is illogical. 
As regards the laws of nature, they are only the ex- 
pression of the will which has established them, after 
having primitively combined them for the end He had 
proposed to Himself." 3 

1 Reusch, " La Bible et la Nature," pp. 106, 109 

2 Lyell, " Antiquity of Man." 

Hist. Nat. des Anim. sans Vertebres," 1835, pp. 258, 272, etc. 



5 4 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

36. Genesis is Not in Formal Contradiction 
with the Theory of Natural Selection.— But Dar- 
winism in itself does not exclude altogether the inter- 
vention of God in the creation of the world; on the 
contrary, more than once it speaks like the Bible. Even 
Haeckel is obliged to acknowledge the points of contact 
between Genesis and Darwinism. He says: 

" In this Mosaic hypothesis of creation two of the 
most important and fundamental propositions stand 
out with remarkable clearness and simplicity: they 
are the idea of division of labor, or differentiation, 
and the idea of progressive development, of perfect- 
ing Although these great laws of organic evolution, 
these laws which we shall prove to be the necessary 
consequence of the doctrine of descent, may be regarded 
by Moses as the expression of the activity of the Creator 
forming the universe, nevertheless we discover therein 
the beautiful idea of progressive evolution, of gradual 
differentiation from primitively simple matter. We 
can, therefore, pay a sincere and just tribute of admira- 
tion to the grand idea contained in the hypothetical cos- 
mogony of the Jewish legislator, without being obliged 
to acknowledge, what some are pleased to call, divine 

manifestation." 1 

Thus Genesis, as Vigouroux rightly says, is not in 
formal opposition to the theory of natural selection, 
inasmuch as the latter is distinct from the theory of de- 
scent. Outside of the question of first cause and finality, 
Darwinism consists essentially in asserting a continual 
progress in the production of beings and a relation of 
filiation between different beings, the more perfect de- 
scending from the less perfect through a kind of gener- 
ation. Of these two Darwinian ideas, the first one, 
that of progress, is Biblical: Moses shows us a very 
1 Haeckel, "Nat. Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 40. 



GENESIS AND NATURAL SELECTION. 65 

marked gradation in the creative work; the second, that 
of filiation, does not appear in the account of Moses, 
but one could not maintain that his language excludes 
it absolutely, at least if we receive it with certain limi- 
tations. Every day of creation is characterized by the 
production of a new species of beings, which receive 
their existence by the command of God. The most 
natural manner to understand this command is to see 
therein, not a transformation of that which existed 
already, but completely new productions. However, 
according to some, there is not one word in. the Sacred 
Text which is opposed to the hypothesis of evolution; 
nothing is revealed of the particular manner in which 
the plants and the animals were produced. The only 
exception is man, whose creation Genesis describes in 
detail. 

However, it appears to us difficult, continues Vigou- 
roux, if not impossible, to explain Holy Scripture in the 
sense that all animals developed from plants and plants 
from minerals by way of transformation, as the adherents 
of the theory of descent pretend. Moses tells us that 
God created the plants and the animals " each after its 
kind." This simple affirmation seems to be the formal 
condemnation of transformism without limitation. But 
Darwinism proper does not go as far as absolute trans- 
formism. The English naturalist admits in both the 
vegetable and animal kingdoms the existence of several 
primitive types, not of one only, and his hypothesis can 
be reconciled with the language of Scripture; for when 
the latter tells us that animals were created by species 
it does not determine the number of these species! 
Thus, there does not exist any radical incompatibility 
between the two explanations. At most, we may think 
that Darwin restricts too much the number of primordial 
species, but as he limits it only in a hypothetical manner 



66 DARWINISM ANT) MONISM. 

and as Genesis does not mention the number of species, 
agreement between the two in regard to this matter is 
far from being impossible; it is only one question more 
that the Scripture, like Darwin, leaves undecided. 

If the plurality of primitive species be admitted, 
there is no longer any conflict in regard to their 
mutability. Darwin maintains that there are to-day 
species which have been derived from other species. 
Holy Scripture does not teach us anything on this ques- 
tion It does not tell us whether this is so or whether 
it is not so ; consequently, Scripture is not involved in this 
contention, and the same is true of the Church, which 
has not passed judgment on this matter. Therefore, we 
believe that those Darwinists who admit in the vegetable 
and animal kingdoms the existence of several primor- 
dial types created by God, from which have come by way 
of transformation and filiation the different existing 
species of the organic world, do not teach anything con- 
trary to revealed doctrine. For example, M. Albert 
Gaudry, Professor at the Museum of Natural History, 
in Paris, is of opinion that secondary species are trans- 
mutable, but are derived from a certain number of 
primordial and irreducible classes, and this view is not 
in conflict with Genesis, because it admits the multi- 
plicity of primitive types and does not exclude the 

,7 Darwinism is an Anti-Genesis in its Tenden- 
cies '-Hence, restrained or modified Darwinism is not in 
itself a contradiction of the Bible. It can, consequently, 
^maintained with the necessary restrictions by believ- 
ing Catholics, as it is in fact by Mr. St. George Mivart 
and others. But if it is not in the strict sense opposed to 
Genesis, this theory is so by reason of its tendencies, and 
the manner in which most of its defenders support it. 
The number of orthodox Darwinists is indeed very small, 



DEFINITION OF GENUS, SFECIES, AND VARIETY. 6j 

and the number of heterodox very large. Most of those 
who have embraced Darwinism go far beyond what it 
teaches ; they accept transformism with all its shocking 
and impious consequences, as Darwin himself did in his 
last years. The theory of selection is for them an ar- 
gument in favor of their thesis, an essential element of 
their system, an integral part of their doctrine, even the 
foundation of their hypothesis, without which the whole 
edifice they try to raise with so much pains and labor 
collapses. It is therefore useful to examine in detail the 
scientific value of this system. 1 

38. Definition of Genus, Species, and Variety — 
Darwinism, in the judgment of the most impartial 
and competent men, has made valuable improvements 
m natural history by determining the causes which pro- 
duce varieties and breeds in the organic world, 2 but it 
goes astray when it tries to go beyond this. Its discov- 
eries suffice to explain the origin of varieties, but not that 
of species. According to the definitions universally ac- 
cepted by all savants before Darwin, species is a collection 
of individuals having the same essential qualities, issued 
from the same primitive pair, and having the power to 
reproduce themselves indefinitely. A group of species 
which have common characters takes the name of genus 
The species is unchangeable in its essential characters, 
but its accessory characters can change under the influ- 
ence of external agencies, and thus give rise to varieties 
and races. We call varieties a group of individuals of 
the same species which differs from the common type 
by accidental modifications of the species. These may 
be due to climate, food, unlimited range, exercise 
impressions through the nervous system, breeding,' 
^Vigouroux, "LesLivres Saints," etc., vol. ii., pp. 593 , 595 . 
See Quatrefages. " Note sur Darwin," in the " Comptes Ren- 
dus de 1 Academie des Sciences," vol. xciv., 1882, pp. I2l6 I2I9 



68 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

crossing, etc. These modifications are not essential and 
specific, but changeable and unstable. They generally 
affect size, color, and conformation. In virtue of the 
law of reversion, varieties naturally return to the primi- 
tive type, if extraneous causes do not force individuals of 
the same variety to couple in order to perpetuate their 
race conformably to the law of heredity. When the par- 
ticular characters which constitute a variety become fixed 
and perpetuated in a constant manner, they form a race. 
In order that so important a point as the classification 
of genus, species, and varieties maybe better understood, 
we give an account of the system of Linnaeus, which 
will be found instructive and interesting. 

Linnaeus combines the species which are most closely 
connected or allied into larger groups, which he calls 
genera. Since then it has become customary to connect 
the names of the genus and species together in the 
systematic enumerations of plants and animals. ^ The 
domestic cat, for instance, is Felts domestic* ; the wild cat, 
Felts catus; the tiger, Felts tigris ; the lion, Felts leo ; the 
panther, Felts pardus ; the jaguar, Felts onca. These six 
beasts of prey are therefore species of the genus Felts. 
In botany, in the same way, seven kinds of pine are 
called species of the one genus Pinus : the pine, Pinus 
alba; the fir, Pinus prica ; the larch, Pinus larix, etc. 
Linnaeus combines the genera which are most like each 
other into so-called orders, or dines, and the orders which 
resemble each other, into classes. 

Of course, besides the resemblances which characterize 
all the individuals of a species, we find individual differ- 
ences. If one egg does not exactly resemble another 
egg, still less are two horses, two dogs, etc., exactly 
alike. There is conformity in the essential qualities, 
which remain the same through all generations, and there 
is difference in the non-essential qualities. 



DARWIN AVOIDED DEFINING RACES AND SPECIES. 6g 

The groups of individuals of the same species which 
resemble one another in non-essential characteristics, and 
which yet differ from the great mass of individuals, are 
called varieties, and if their peculiarities become heredi- 
tary they can propagate new races. Poodles, grey- 
hounds, bulldogs, terriers, etc., for instance, are differ- 
ent breeds or races of the same species, dog; the dog, 
the wolf, the fox, etc., are different species of the genus 
Canis — Cants domesticus, Canis lupus, Canis vulpes. " The 
race," says Virchow, "forms a separate series within the 
species, which, however far we may go back, at some 
time branches off from the common root, and does not 
again amalgamate with it, but remains true to its own 
peculiarities; varieties, on the other hand, represent 
branches from the stem, which often repeat themselves, 
which occur, as it were, under the eyes of the observer! 
and sometimes produce progeny with the qualities of 
the original ancestors." ' As, for instance, we find that 
flowers which regularly produce white blossoms some- 
times produce red ; while from the ' seeds of the latter, 
after a few generations, white flowers will spring again.' 
Varieties and races have, therefore, been formed in the 
course of time; species, on the other hand, have existed 
from the beginning. 

39. Darwin Always Avoided Defining Races and 
Species.— Such were the opinions of the old naturalists. 
Darwin, however, who proposed to explain the origin 
of species, as the title of his work indicates, has not only 
always evaded, but purposely avoided, giving a defi- 
nition of races and species. This is a serious fault, and 
makes a bad break in his work ; betrays embarrassment, 
and shows that his conclusions rest on equivocation. It 
is easy to see, nevertheless, by the manner in which he 
reasons, that the distinctions admitted by him between 
1 " Die Lehre Darwins," " Deutsche Jahrbiicher," vol. vi., p. 341. 



70 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

species and races do not appear to him well founded, 
and that these words are for him only two different 
names for one and the same thing. He says : 

" Although entire libraries were written on the ques- 
tion whether this or that class is a species or a variety, a 
good or a bad kind, no naturalists can answer the question 
what a good or a bad species, properly speaking, is." 
He resumes: "Thus far no definite line was drawn 
either between kinds and species, between sub-species 
and expressed varieties, or between the latter and. indi- 
vidual differences. Thus the individual differences form 
the first step to insignificant varieties, which then are 
changed (by natural selection) into striking varieties, 
sub-species, and kinds. Hence the expression < species' 
is an arbitrary one, from which < variety ' only differs 
inasmuch as this is applied to more or less deviating 
and changing forms." l 

Thus, according to Darwin, variety is a " rising spe- 
cies," as compared with the race; it does not differ by 
any'important character from the species. Hence when 
he has explained the origin of races, he has at the same 
time explained the origin of species. The dispute 
between the Darwinists and their opponents may be 
reduced to one question, which covers the whole ground 
in dispute : Does a real difference exist between species 
and race? Darwin, in order to establish his thesis, 
should have commenced by proving that the transforma- 
tion of species is a real fact, and only afterwards have 
shown how this transformation takes place. But he was 
careful to avoid venturing over this road, and preferred 
to evade the principle and draw the consequences there- 
from. He occupied himself with explaining the fact 
which he continually pre-supposed without having estab- 
lished it. Now we shall follow him over the ground he 

has chosen to take. 

• ' Darwin, " Origin of Species," ch. ii. 



VARIABILITY. 



n 



40. Proofs Brought Forward by the Evolution- 
ists. — The adherents of the system of evolution accu- 
mulate a number of proofs in detail, and from these they 
infer the identity of race and species. These proofs can 
all be reduced to three heads, namely: the variability of 
plants and animals, embryology, and comparative anat- 
omy. Still, all these proofs are insufficient to substantiate 
the fact of the transformation of species ; none of them 
establishes the passing of one species into another, which 
is absolutely necessary to demonstrate the Darwinian 
hypothesis. 

41. (a) Variability.— That human intelligence and 
perseverance has obtained many extraordinary and aston- 
ishing results in the transformation of cultured planes 
and animals is a fact well known to all. We confess 
Darwin's contributions are invaluable in their way ; they 
probably inaugurate a "new epoch in natural history; " 
they will serve to bring more order into the chaos of our 
scientific knowledge. But the case is far from being 
closed, the variability of species - is far from being- 
proved. Improved fruit-trees, ornamental, horticult- 
ural, and culinary plants, show singular and important, 
changes of the vegetable organism, in their fruits, blos- 
soms, stems, and leaves. In the animal world, also, man 
can produce not only new races, but also certain features, 
markings, development, formations, dwarfing, etc., that 
suit his caprice or afford him certain advantages. The 
pigeon fancier produces birds with short or with long 
beaks, crested or with plain heads, frilled or hooded, of 
all colors and markings. One can trace the dog in 
scores of types, sizes, and colors, varying widely in his 
most prominent characteristics. The horse, too, has 
undergone many important changes and improvements, 
furnishing numerous breeds for man's use and benefit. 
A bull of abnormal appearance in Paraguay became the 



72 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

progenitor of a hornless race of cattle now quite popular 
among stockmen and farmers. The appearance of a 
hornless animal, followed by selective breeding, was the 
foundation of a new race. From a bandy-legged ram 
an American sheep-breeder raised a new race of sheep. 
We could multiply examples of variation in domestic 
animals, where some peculiar feature was taken for a 
starting-point, and was followed by selective breeding, 
until it became developed and fixed. We may even go 
further than experience would lead us, and assume with 
the Darwinists that all the domesticated races may be 
reduced to a primitive pair of each kind. But all these 
changes, however numerous and great they may be, do 
not justify Darwin in drawing the conclusion that there 
is no difference between race and species. 

42. The Variability of Species is Limited.— The 
variability of species, according to the experience fur- 
nished by artificial breeding, has limits ; neither the veg- 
etable nor the animal kingdom ever passes these limits. 
The changes always bear only on accessory or acquired 
properties, and in no case do they touch what is charac- 
teristic and fundamental in the species. However per- 
sistent his efforts, however ingenious his experiments, 
man has never bred a dog out of a fox or a wolf, nor a 
swan out of a goose, although these animals are closely 
related. A pigeon or dog fancier may produce many 
races of pigeons or dogs, but however great or small the 
likeness between the several organs may be, he cannot 
change them to another species. In spite of all changes 
that have produced more than two hundred varieties, 
eleven races, and four clearly marked groups of pigeons 
from the primitive blue rock dove, as soon as man remits 
his selective breeding and his care, there is a return to 
the primitive type and markings. The same may be said 
of the dog; although there are twelve clearly marked 



VARIETIES RETURN TO THEIR PRIMITIVE TYPE. 73 

varieties of greyhounds alone, they and the bulldog may 
be traced to a common parentage, but not to different 
species. 

Thus variability, in the first place, is limited. As Hart- 
mann says: 

" Every breeder knows that the first degrees of modi- 
fication are the easiest to obtain; that all subsequent 
degrees are the more difficult to realize, the more they 
branch off from the normal type, and that every experi- 
ment of artificial breeding, in any of the directions open 
by nature, arrives at a limit where every attempt to 
push it further becomes fruitless. For example, since 
1852 no new development in the dimensions of the 
gooseberry has been brought about, although there 
appears to be no reason why they do not become as thick 
as lemons, if variability were wholly unlimited." ' 

Again, M. Wiegand, Professor of Botany at Marburg, 
observes that natural variations are limited, both as re- 
gards quality and as regards quantity. 

"The breeder would not dare attempt to obtain an 
inverted variety from the chicken, or from the spurred 
pigeon a yellow pigeon, or a blue lemon or orange or 
a yellow poppy from a garden poppy, or a rose having a 
hundred yellow leaves, because nature does not produce 
these modifications." 2 

From this it follows that if species is variable it is 
not transmutable. Though the characters which dis- 
tinguish it can be modified to a certain degree, this 
modification never extends so far as to produce what it 
would be right to call a new species. Artificial selec- 
tion alone proves the relative fixity of specific characters. 
43- Varieties Left to Themselves Return to 
Their Primitive Type.— To variability, as well as to 

Le Darwinisme," p. 98. 

Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung," vol. i., p. 54. 



a " 



«. DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

the ocean, God has fixed a limit which it cannot pass; 
though it can modify, it cannot create. This is so true 
that the changes which are obtained by artificial selec- 
tion are made permanent only by the constant interven- 
tion of an intelligence that must preside over their 
preservation. Nature is so conservative that m virtue 
of the law of reversion it returns to its primitive type 
as soon as the selector no longer interferes or contra- 
venes its tendencies. 

Darwin himself acknowledges that, in order to obtain 
new races, the breeders must exercise great intelligence, 
unremitted care, and constant attention . " Not one man 
in a thousand has accuracy of eye and judgment suffi- 
cient to become an eminent breeder. If gifted with 
these qualities, he studies his subject for years, and 
devotes his lifetime to it with indomitable perseverance, 
he will succeed and may make great improvements ; if 
he wants any of these qualities, he will assuredly fail." 1 
If this is the case when the most energetic and the 
most intelligent will can hardly succeed in obtaining a 
somewhat new type, how is it possible to uphold the 
idea that nature, deprived of all direction, could bring 
forth the innumerable beings which people the globe 
from a few rudimentary types? 

One day a strawberry-plant whose culture had greatly 
modified the leaves was brought to Linnaeus. These, 
instead of being composed of three small leaves,^ had 
one This strawberry-plant was preserved in the " Jar- 
din des Plantes," and Duchene, a famous gardener of 
the time, saw it bloom and bear fruit. Then he tried 
to reproduce it by sowing its grains; in the third seed- 
bed he obtained a strawberry-plant whose leaves had 
recovered their natural character: they were trifoliates. 

1 " Origin of Species," pp. 4*1 42. 

2 L. Simon, " De l'Origine des Especes," 1865, pp. 40, 41. 



VARIABILITY NEVER AFFECTS SPECIES. 75 

The same facts have been observed in animals. All 
this proves how constant the laws of nature are. Artifi- 
cial races are factitious and conditional; they depend 
upon the climate, soil, regimen, alliances, 1 as well as on 
the regular and permanent care provided by the protec- 
tive hand of man. If this hand is withdrawn, if condi- 
tions change, even old races degenerate and disappear; 
after having oscillated, like the pendulum of a clock, they 
return to their starting-point. " Natural selection," says 
P. Janet, a philosopher and freethinker, "is nothing 
else than the chance of Epicurus, and just as barren as 
this." 

O. Heer, arguing from the results of his paleontolog- 
ical inquiries, says : " The origin of varieties is a secret,* 
an enigma, about which we may guess, but which has 
not found its solution by the application of laws so 
far known." 2 Virchow, after having expressed himself 
in the same sense, continues, saying: "I only ask for 
proof whereby such a transformation is established; 
until this proof is furnished, I can admit only that it is 
probable. However, I was misled and deceived so 
often by probabilities, that I have learned to be more 
cautious in future and to wait until the facts are clearly 
proved." 3 

44. Variability Never Affects What is Essen- 
tial in Species. — In the second place, variability never 
affects what is essential in species. For example, 
experiment allows us to bring about modifications in 
certain organs, but never the production of a new organ, 
even by means of the most refined artificial selection. 
"The gymnast," pointedly observes M. Janet, "has 
muscles more movable or less movable than other men. 

1 E. Hartmann, " Le Darwinisme," p. 69. 

2 O. Heer, " Die Urwelt der Schweitz," p. 603. 

3 " Correspondenzblatt,' 1871, p. 70. 



y6 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

Has lie different muscles? Has he more? Are they 
differently arranged?" ' Certain influences can produce 
physiological changes, but these changes never touch 
organic forms. The use or disuse of members favors 
their development or tends to incipient atrophy, but if 
they exercise an influence on the volume, the weight, 
and the structure of organs, they do not modify their 
form ; and it is even more clear that atrophy never goes 
so far as wholly to suppress an organ. This Hart- 
mann, himself a transformist, admits. 2 Variability, 
therefore, has only a limited power. It can produce dur- 
able effects only by exercising these powers within re- 
stricted limits; in other words, it can establish races, but 

not species. 

45. (b) Embryology.— The Darwinists regard the 
argument from embryology as one of the strongest argu- 
ments in favor of their doctrine, but it is a sword which 
cuts both ways, and does not furnish conclusive proof in 
favor of Darwinism. Transformists consider the en- 
semble of embryonic facts as representative of the gen- 
esis of beings. The embryo is for them the animal itself 
less modified than it will be later on, and producing in 
its personal evolution the phases which the species has 
undergone in its gradual formation. What is conclusive 
in their favor, they think, is the extremely close resem- 
blance which is remarked in the early phases of embry- 
onic existence between animals that later on will be as 
different as reptiles, birds, and mammifers. Every ani- 
mal comes from an egg and a primitive cell. The phe- 
nomena which pass within them towards the end are the 
same in all eggs. The segmentation and apparition of 
the first rudiments takes place in all living things in the 
same order and in the same manner. 

' P. Janet, " Les Causes Finales," Paris, 1876, p. 381. 

8 Darwin, " Origin of Species," pp. 519. 532- 



EVERY EGG DEVELOPS INTO ITS TYPE OF LIFE. yj 

Embryology, according to Darwinism, offers us a 
short way to the complete history of the evolution of 
animal species. Every animate thing comes from an 
egg, omne vivimi ex ovo; omne ovum ex ovario; every ani- 
mate thing in a short time runs through these phe- 
nomena; and the multiple halting-places which their 
ancestors demanded in the course of nature are not 
known. Transformation alone is able to render an ac- 
count of this singular phenomenon, which is therefore 
a proof in favor of transformation. 

46. Every Egg Develops Only into its Own Type 
of Life. — This is, in substance, what the Darwinists 
claim, but all savants do not share this belief; several 
naturalists consider the evolutionists' argument from 
embryology to be poetic rather than scientific. ' On what 
foundation is the supposition that the individual passes 
through all the phases of its race-history based? On no 
foundation whatsoever. These forms follow a develop- 
ment proper to each species, and are fixed when the char- 
acters of animal life direct them - into a special form, 
which then remains invariable, and is never found in an- 
other animal species ; or, in other words, " every egg 
develops only into its own distinct type of life. The 
growth always stops at the same place ; the development 
always proceeds to a certain definite point, never falls 
below or passes beyond." 

The ovules of mammals in their primitive state re- 
semble one another, so that they cannot be physically 
distinguished, and, nevertheless, an ovule in the course 
of its development may become a horse, a dog, or a 
whale. Therefore, there must be in the ovule a special 
principle, a something which distinguishes its physical 
composition, although in the present state of our knowl- 
edge, and with the resources at present within our reach, 

1 B. B. Pussey, " Permanency and Evolution,' 1862, p. 92. 



J 8 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

this escapes the eye of the naturalist ; it being impossible 
to ascertain these physical differences on account of the 
imperfection of our senses. There is a moment, says 
Coste, the creator of embryology, when the organization 
of the superior animal reduces itself to the simplicity of 

the cell. 

" The egg offers us the transitory image of this sim- 
plicity, for it has all the characters of the cell and de- 
velops in a similar manner. Like the latter, it is made 
up of an enveloping membrane and its cellular con- 
tents, but this contents, instead of undergoing the lot 
in store for the common cells, tends to move constantly 
towards the end of its high destination. Here, there- 
fore, the analogy is merely in the form or appearance; 
the difference is in the nature of the force which ani- 
mates this form and co-ordinates the materials thereof." 

47. The First Sensible Progress in the Evolu- 
tion of the Egg. — The first sensible progress in the 
evolution of the eggs of superior animals consists in the 
formation of the blastoderm, that is, of the general envel- 
ope of the skin of the new being. This gives to the em- 
bryo a certain likeness to the inferior animals, such as the 
medusae and hydras, in which the general envelope per- 
forms all the functions and in fact constitutes the grown- 
up organism. But, continues Coste: 

"At one point of the blastodermic side a primitive 
or vertebral line appears quite early ; of this inferior ani- 
mals never reveal any trace, and it is precisely this that 
prevents our inferring that these resemblances have the 
character of identity. While expressing the idea of a 
general plan common to all beings, they exclude the possi- 
bility of a transformation under the influence of exter- 
nal agents." 

1 Coste, " Histoire du Developpement des Corps Organises," 
vol. i., p. 17. 



FIRST PROGRESS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE EGG. 79 

Agassiz confirms the assertions of the French Pro- 
fessor : 

" It has been maintained in the broadest terms that su- 
perior animals pass, during their development, through 
all the phases which characterize inferior classes. Thus 
formulated, this proposition is entirely contrary to 
truth. ... In their primitive condition the eggs of 
all animals are alike, but as soon as the embryo begins 
to show characteristic traits, these reveal such peculiari- 
ties that the type of the animal can be distinguished. It 
cannot be said, therefore, that there are phases in the de- 
velopment of an animal that do not lie within the lines of 
its evolution. At no moment of its development is a ver- 
tebrate an articulate or an animal resembling an articu- 
late ; at no instant is an articulate a mollusk, nor a mollusk 
a radiate, and vice versa. . . . No superior animal passes 
through phases representative of all the inferior types 
of the animal kingdom ; it undergoes simply a series of 
modifications special to the animals of the order to which 
it belongs." J 

Nay, more, as Agassiz has also established, the char- 
acters of its species manifest themselves before those of 
its order and before those of its genus, which is at 
direct variance with the genealogical succession of the 
transformists. 

Finally, the fact alleged by the evolutionists is not a 
universal one, and has been greatly exaggerated. The 
cuts by which Haeckel has represented the different 
embryos in order to make them perceptible and to show 
their likeness when they first appeared, seemed to be a 
triumphant argument in favor of his thesis ; but since 
then they have considerably lowered the reputation of 
this savant, and even cast suspicions on his good faith ; 
for it is known and acknowledged in Germany to-day 

1 L. Agassiz, " Histoire Generale du Developpement," etc., p. 18. 



8o DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

that these cuts are a falsification of the figures of Messrs. 
His and Semper. 1 The striking resemblances there de- 
picted are, therefore, in reality the result of a fraud. It is 
certain, as Darwin himself admits, that all animals, with- 
out exception, do not pass through the different stages 
of their so-called ancestors. 2 But the laws of nature are 
general, and if the Darwinistic explanation of embry- 
ological development were correct, it would not admit 
of any exception. The law which governs the forma- 
tion of animals in the first period of their existence is, 
therefore, not a proof of the truth of Darwin's system. 3 

48. (c) Comparative Anatomy. — The third argu- 
ment of the evolutionists is no more conclusive than 
the others. One of the chief reasons they advance in 
favor of their system, and one which strikes many 
minds as conclusive, is that which they draw from 
comparative anatomy ; it is founded on the existence 
of many rudimentary, atrophied, and disused organs 
in animals. Darwin says: 

" It would be difficult to name a superior animal in 
which there does not exist some part in the rudimentary- 
state. In the mammifers, for instance, the males 
always possess rudimentary mammas; in the serpents 
one wing of the lung is rudimentary ; in the birds the 
bastard wing is so rudimentary that it is useless for 
flying. Is there anything more curious than the pres- 
ence of teeth in the foetus of the whale, which, when 
grown up, has no trace of these organs ; or the presence 
of teeth which never pierce the gum in the upper jaw 
of a calf before its birth? ... In the works of natural 
history they generally tell us that the rudimentary organs 
were created with a view to symmetry or to complete the 

1 See " Literarischer Handweiser," 1884, col. 20. 

2 Darwin, " Origin of Species," p. 503. 

3 Cf. Vigouroux, " Livres Saints," etc. 



ANATOMICAL SIMILARITY OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE. 8 I 

plan of nature. Now, this is merely a repetition of the 
fact, and no explanation. 

'On the view of descent with modification, the origin 
of rudimentary organs is simple. ... I believe that 
disuse has been the main agency; that it has led in suc- 
cessive generations to the gradual reduction of various 

organs, until they have become rudimentary as in the 

case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns, and 
■of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which 
have seldom been forced by beasts of prey to take flight, 
and have ultimately lost the power of flying. . . . Rudi- 
mentary organs may be compared with the letters in a 
word still retained in the spelling, but become useless 
in the pronunciation, but which serve as a clue for its 
derivation. On the view of descent with modification, 
we may conclude that the existence of organs in a ru- 
dimentary, imperfect, or useless condition, or quite 
aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they 
assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of creation, might 
even have been anticipated in accordance with the views 
here explained." x 

Darwin, while explaining by atrophy the rudimentary 
organs, explains at the same time the striking similitude 
of forms which we remark under apparent diversity in. 
the different species of animals actually existing. With- 
out this system, it is impossible, say the Darwinists, to 
discover by what strange coincidence the structure of 
the bones is so similar in the arm of man, in the wing 
of the bat, in the front leg of the horse and in the fin of 
the porpoise, and why the neck of the giraffe and that 
of the elephant contain the same number of vertebras. 2 

49- Anatomical Similarity of Little Impor- 
tance.— In the first place, let us observe that anatomical 

1 Darwin, " Origin of Species," pp. 408-410. 

2 Quatrefages, " Ch. Darwin." p. 192. 
6 



g 2 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

similarity has not the importance which the Darwinists 
attribute to it. Resemblance in the skeletons of two 
animals is not sufficient at all to establish identity of 
species The horse, the ass, the zebra, and the jiggetai 
are very different animals, and nevertheless they resem- 
ble one another so closely in their skeletons that it is 
impossible to distinguish them by their osteological 
characters alone. If these four species were buried to- 
gether, paleontologists of the future would be obliged 
to reduce them to one. Louis Agassiz, the famous nat- 
uralist of Harvard University, far from finding an argu- 
ment in favor of transformation of species from similarity 
in the structure of animals, on the contrary draws thence 
an argument in favor of creation. 

" Nothing in the organic kingdom is of a nature to im- 
press us so much as the unity of plan which appears in 
the structure of the most different types. From one pole 
to another under the meridians, mammifers, birds, rep- 
tiles, fishes, reveal one and the same plan of structure 
This plan denotes abstract conceptions of the highest 
order- it surpasses by far the grandest generalizations of 
the human mind, and it needed the most laborious re- 
searches to enable man to form only an idea of it. Other 
no less wonderful plans appear in the articulata, the mol- 
lusks, the radiata, and in the different types of plants 
and in spite of this logical relation, this v/onderful 
harmony, this infinite variety in unity, these are rep- 
resented to us as the result of forces to which belong 
neither the least spark of intelligence, nor the faculty of 
thinking, nor the power of combining, nor the notions of 
time or space! If anything in nature can place man 
above other beings, it is precisely the fact that he pos- 
sesses these noble attributes. Without these gifts m a 
very high degree of excellence and perfection, none of 



RUDIMENTARY ORGANS. 83 

the general traits of parentage which unite the great 
types of the animal and vegetable kingdoms could either 
be perceived or understood. How then could these rela- 
tions be imagined, if not with the help of analogous 
faculties? If all these relations surpass the intellectual 
horizon of man, if man himself is only a part, a frag- 
ment of the total system, how could this system have 
been called into existence, if there was not a supreme in- 
telligence, author of all things?" ' 

50. Rudimentary Organs.— With regard to those 
"animals inhabiting dark caverns and having only rudi- 
mentary eyes, and the birds inhabiting oceanic islands 
which have lost the power of flying," we must say, that 
the ideas put forward by Darwin are borrowed from La- 
marck, who tells us that the giraffe got its long neck by 
trying to stretch it out more and more in order to be able 
to reach the leaves of African trees. According to Dar- 
win, also, the eyes of subterranean animals become con- 
tinually smaller, because they have no occasion to make 
use of them in their dark dwelling-places. But if dis- 
use reduces the size of the eyes by degrees, certainly 
there is a limit to their decrease, or else we should, have 
eyeless animals inhabiting dark places. If Darwin's 
hypothesis be true, why are so many animals which 
live in the depths of the ocean provided with well- 
formed eyes? We instance the animals of which Mr. 
Thompson reports, 2 which at a depth of two miles have 
such perfect eyes that the remainder of the body might 
appear as only an appendix to them. 

When Darwin considers the rudimentary organs as 
useless, he tells us something which is not by any 

1 L. Agassiz, " Rapportes des Animaux entre eux et avec le 
Monde Ambiant," "Revue des Cours Scientifiques," May 2, 1868, 
PP- 35i, 352. * "Nature," April 3, 1873. 



84 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

means proved. Indeed, we are far from knowing per- 
fectly the functions of all the parts of organized beings. 
It is therefore very possible that all rudimentary organs, 
like the wings of the apteryx, serve an end which is un- 
known to us,— we are ignorant of so many things ! We 
should always say with Linnseus : Dens omnisciens; legi 
aliquot ejus vestigia per ere at a return. 

The uniformity of plan adopted by the Creator in His 
works may very well explain the presence of organs 
without apparent use in some animals, whatever the trans- 
formists may say. God has impressed on them in some 
manner the seal of their parentage. Instead of being 
an argument in favor of evolution, remarks Agassiz,. 
" does not the existence of a rudimentary eye discovered 
by Doctor J. Wyman in a fish {amblyopsis spelmis) of 
the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, prove rather that this 
animal, like all others, has been created with all its. 
peculiar characteristics by the fiat of the Almighty, and 
that this rudimentary eye has been left to it as a remin- 
iscence of the general plan of structure on which is 
constructed the grand type to which it belongs?" 

51. Darwinism is Far from Explaining what it 
Attempts to Explain.— It is evident that Darwinism 
is far from explaining clearly the facts which it essays 
to explain. Every organic peculiarity, at least when 
it is well proved, should explain itself by its use. Now 
this is not the case, as Darwin himself acknowledges. 
There are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely 
or never go near the water. 1 On the plains of La Plata 
a woodpecker, the Colaptes campestris, has the feet of a 
climber and does not climb. 2 These are cases in which, 
if the Darwinian explanation were correct, certain or- 
gans should be atrophied through disuse. But it hap- 

3 Darwin, " Origin of Species," p. 177- 
2 Darwin, op. fit., p. 176. 



ATAVISM. 85 

pens they are not. What should we conclude from this 
unless that the explanations of Darwin and his adher- 
ents are unsatisfactory and incomplete ? 

How many other facts are there which are equally 
mysterious to Darwinism ? Thus it cannot explain the 
existence of the neuters, so numerous in beehives and 
ant nests. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable fact in 
natural history. Isolated cases in the animal kingdom 
are accidents, and consequently are explained without 
much difficulty; but here there is question of the regular 
and normal production of individuals, the organization of 
which transforms itself so as to assure sterility, although 
they came from ancestors that were fertile since the 
species existed. Here is a derogation from one of the 
most general rules of the organized world. 1 Darwin 
himself could find no satisfactory reason for this phenom- 
enon nor for a great number of other facts. 2 

52. (d) Atavism. — Sometimes it happens that an ani- 
mal, to whatever part of the zoological series it belongs, 
reproduces in an unexpected manner the traits of one of 
its ancestors, from which it is separated by several gen- 
erations ; this is what is called a case of "atavism." 
Transformists wish to explain resemblances which ap- 
pear from time to time in the animal world, for instance 
in the mammifer, by heredity and affiliation with spe- 
cies of an inferior order, such as reptiles and fishes. 
Is this not going beyond the limits of induction? Hear 
what Conteyeau, a rationalist who denies both God and 
miracles, says: "Just like the arguments drawn from the 
embryonal state and rudimentary organs, those which 
the transformists borrow from atavism and monstrosities 
cannot reasonably be admitted, as long as the alleged 
facts regard exclusively varieties of the same species. 

1 Cf. Darwin, " Origin of Species," pp. 226 seq. 

2 Quatrefages, " Ch. Darwin," p. 164. 



86 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

In all other cases they rather prove unity of plan. 
Indeed, it will be admitted without difficulty that ac- 
cidental modifications of individuals look more or 
less alike among all the individuals of the group to 
which they belong. There is nothing unnatural in 
horses and asses having sometimes zebra legs, because, 
excepting the horse, all the species of the genus Equus 
(horse) are striped in various ways, but this does not 
prove at all, as is asserted, that they have a common 
ancestor with a striped robe." ' 

The theory of selection, therefore, does not clear up 
what it pretends to explain. It is far from removing 
all the veils which hide the secrets of nature. The ar- 
guments brought forward in its favor are not conclusive. 
Were they well founded, one could not help drawing 
therefrom at least the general truths of the system. But 
Darwin's theory offers, for the most part, only presump- 
tions and probabilities. But were even these probabil- 
ities well supported, they would have to vanish before 
the light of facts. This is what we are now going to 

■ pstablish. 

53. The Darwinists Do Not Produce One Es- 
tablished Fact.— In all their discussions the Darwin- 
ists do not bring up as proof one 'established fact in sup- 
port of their fundamental thesis. They maintain that 
species proceed from one another by way of descent, 
and they cannot show that it is a fact that a single 
species passed into another during the records of animal 
life. They draw inferences from the universal diversity 
of organic and inorganic things and from some par- 
ticular abnormal productions. There is a hierarchy 
in beings; they assure us there is a genealogy; 
they establish resemblances, and affirm descent; they 
observe variability, and assert transmutability ; they 
1 "Revue Scientifique," April 30, 1881. 



HISTORY AND GEOLOGY. Sy 

conclude from the possibility of their system to its reality. 
However, as the scholastics say, very correctly, a possibili 
ad actum non valet consecutio. The possibility of a thing- 
is far from explaining its existence ; everything is pos- 
sible, except what is self-contradictory. But science is 
the study of facts, not of possibilities ; it is founded on ob- 
servation and experience, and though it has the right to 
invent hypotheses, to bind together the phenomena ob- 
served, and thus establish a natural philosophy, it is only 
on condition of not contradicting the phenomena which 
we observe in the world, and of respecting the laws 
of nature, which we behold with our eyes in daily appli- 
cation. Every theory which is in opposition to the facts 
and the laws of nature must be rejected by the natural- 
ist as unsound, and contrary to the principles and methods 
of science. Now the hypothesis of the mutability of 
species is in opposition to facts ; this is what both his- 
tory and experience attest. 

54. -History and Geology. — History and geology, 
as high as one can ascend in the study of the past, con- 
firm the permanency of species. Thus, in the ruins 
of Herculaneum and Pompeii, buried for more than 1800 
years under lava from Mount Vesuvius, there was found 
in the house of a painter a collection of shells, and in the 
store of a fruit-dealer vessels full of chestnuts, olives, 
and nuts, all in a perfect state of preservation. These 
shells and fruits are nowise different from the same 
kinds of shells and fruits to-day. Aristotle described, 
more than 2000 years ago, a great number of plants 
and animals. His descriptions are exact and faith- 
ful pictures of the present species, and show that dur- 
ing the interval of time these species have undergone 
no perceptible change. In the course of the present 
century there were discovered in the tombs of ancient 
Egypt seeds of various plants and many species of em- 



88 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

balmed animals, which had lived long before Aristotle, 
even as far back as the fourth Egyptian dynasty. These 
seeds and animals are the same as those of our day. 

55. The Fauna of Ancient Egypt. — The same is 
the case with the plants and animals represented by the 
paintings, sculptures, and bas-reliefs that abound on the 
monuments of that country. Here are some examples: 
On the shores of the river Nile is found to-day an 
indigenous dog; formerly submissive to man, it is now- 
free and nomadic. Thirty centuries of civilization, fol- 
lowed by a thousand years of barbarism, could not affect 
its nature nor cause it to undergo any change. These 
dogs, which are commonly called by the Hindoo name, 
parias, are altogether like those which are found em- 
balmed in great numbers in the ancient tombs. The 
only and invariable sign for the word dog in all the hie- 
roglyphic inscriptions is their picture. This indigenous 
type was not the only one which existed in the land of 
Menes and Sesostris. The greyhound, hunting-dog, and 
bulldog Avere also known, and their characteristic forms 
are exactly reproduced on bas-reliefs and paintings, 
which date back about 4000 years. We refer in partic- 
ular to the figured scenes on the tomb of Roti, a famous 
sportsman who lived under the twelfth dynasty, more 
than 2000 years before Christ. On the most ancient 
monuments we hardly find anything but the hiero- 
glyphic dog, which leads us to suppose that the other 
races were of foreign origin. It is not less curious that 
the greyhound and the bulldog were as distinct and 
characteristic at that time as they are to-day, and that 
these types have persisted without any notable change 
since the beginning of historical times, under the most 
diverse climates and most changeable conditions. With 
regard to the mastiff, properly speaking {Cams laniarius), 
it does not figure on the monuments of Egypt, but its 



THE FAUNA OF ANCIENT EGYPT. 89 

genealogy is very respectable, for its ancestors had 
already statues in Babylon and Nineve more than 600 
years before Christ. Mr. Nott, in an interesting chapter 
treating of the " Monumental History of Dogs," ' gives an 
engraving of a magnificent bas-relief found in the ruins 
of Babylon, and sculptured, as Oriental archaeologists tell 
us, in the reign of Nabuchodonosor. It represents a fine 
mastiff, whose form and proportions, physiognomy and 
carriage are found again without any modification in 
the mastiff of to-day. There is here no question of 
mere resemblance, but of complete identity; and the 
identity is so marked that the Babylonian dog seems 
copied from a photograph of one of our most beautiful 
and useful watch-dogs. Thus certain types have perpet- 
uated themselves without any change from the earliest 
times until our own days. Forty centuries at least have 
passed by without altering their general characteristics. 
Neither time, climate, habit, nor nourishment could 
efface the seal of nature. 2 

What is true with regard to dogs is equally true with 
regard to all other animals figured on the monuments of 
the valley of the Nile, as Cuvier attests : " I have care- 
fully examined," he says, "the figures of animals and 
birds engraved on the numerous obelisks which came 
from Egypt, in the ancient city of Rome. All these 
figures, taken on the whole — and this alone could 
have been the object of attention for artists — bear a per- 
fect resemblance to the species we see to-day. Every 
one can examine the copies thereof which Kircher and 
Zoega will furnish; without preserving the purity of 

1 This article forms a part of a remarkable chapter on hybridity, 
published in the beautiful work of Nott and Gliddon, " Types 
of Mankind." 

2 P. Broca, " Memoire sur l'Hybridite," in the "Journal de la 
Physiologie de l'Homme," vol. L, pp. 444, 446. 



9° 



DARWINISM AND MONISM, 



the features of the animals, they yet offer very recog- 
nizable figures. It is easy to distinguish the ibis, vul- 
ture, screech-owl, falcon-hawk, the Egyptian goose, the 
lapwing, the ground-rail, the viper or asp, the ceraster, 
the Egyptian hare with its long ears, the hippopotamus, 
etc." Any Egyptologist unacquainted with fossil fauna 
will find Cuvier's account confirmed by an examination 
of the figures of birds and animals on the obelisk in the 
Central Park, at New York. 

56. The Flora of Ancient Egypt.— The flora has 
no more changed than the fauna. With the flowers 
found in the tombs of Amenophis I., of the eighteenth 
dynasty, who lived over 3000 years ago, Schweinfurth has 
composed a magnificent herbal of samples for the mu- 
seum of Boulak, and he has placed them alongside of 
modern specimens in order that the visitor may be ena- 
bled to compare them. The resemblance is such that 
the ordinary eye fails to detect any difference, either in 
form or color, without the written indications which 
make known their origin. 1 

Lacepede, therefore, correctly concluded from these 
facts, especially from the collection of mummified ani- 
mals brought from Egypt by Geoff roy St. Hilaire : 

" Never has there been anything brought to light to 

1 L.Drapeyron, " Revue de Geographic" 1882, vol. xi., p. 90. Cf. 
Ktmth, " Recherches sur les Plantes dans les Tombeaux Egyp- 
tiens," by M. Passalacqua, in the " Annales des Sciences Natur- 
elles," 1882, vol. viii., pp. 418, 423- " Th e fruits and fragments of 
plants," he says, on p. 418, " in the tombs of ancient Egypt almost 
all belong to vegetables which we meet to-day in those countries. 
The most scrupulous comparison of the analogous plants did not 
allow me to perceive any difference. Consequently, it appears to 
me to be proved that the vegetation of these two epochs is per- 
fectly identical, and that since many centuries plants have not 
undergone any sensible change, either in their forms or in their 
structures." 



THE TERTIARY FAUNA. 9 1 

decide better (the permanency of species) , for here we 
have a great number of remarkable species which are 
several thousands of years old. It seems that the 
superstition of the ancient Egyptians was inspired by 
nature, with the view of leaving a monument of its his- 
tory. This whimsical people, by embalming with such 
great care the animals which they had made the objects 
of their stupid, adoration, have left us in their sacred 
grottos almost complete cabinets of zoology. . . . And 
when at present we satisfy ourselves with our own eyes 
what many species were about 3000 and more years 
ago, ... we can hardly control our enthusiasm when 
we see animals preserved with their bones and hairs, and 
perfectly recognizable, which two or three thousand years 
ago had priests and altars in Thebes or in Memphis. 
But ... let us confine ourselves to laying before you 
the inference from this portion of the collection made by 
citizen Geoffroy, namely, that these animals are per- 
fectly similar to those of to-day." ' 

57. The Tertiary Fauna.— Geology and paleontol- 
ogy permit us to go much further back into the past, far 
beyond the limits which history can reach, and their 
testimony is the same as that of ancient Egypt. Dar- 
win has been obliged to acknowledge that the skeletons 
of animals have not changed since the glacial period. 
According to Agassiz, the southern extremity of Florida 
has been formed by the accumulations of the corals of 
tropical seas, and, if his calculations are correct, the 
formation of the coral reefs required no less a period 
than two hundred thousand years.. Now when we com- 
pare the zoophytes which formed the uppermost ledges 
of these reefs with those which formed their lowest 
strata, we cannot detect any difference between them. 

Professor Marsh, our great American paleontologist, 
1 " Annales du Museum," nth year (1802), pp. 235, 236. 



92 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

has up to the present time described from his great col- 
lection twenty-five different species of mammals from the 
tertiary formation. They are divided into fourteen 
kinds and seven families. All these families are equally 
represented by the European fauna. 1 Two scorpions 
from the silurian formation were discovered up to the 
present. The one was found by Torell, in i884,on the isl- 
and of Gothland; the other by Lesmahagon, also in 1884, 
in Scotland. Both greatly resemble the family of scor- 
pions of our days. Besides the Palceoblattina Douvillei, of 
which however only one wing was found, these scorpions 
are the only land animals which the silurian formation 
has produced thus far. 2 The archseopteryx is a fossil 
mesozoic bird, discovered by Andreas Wagner in 1861, 
in the lithographic slates of Solenhofen, in Bavaria. It 
is of the Jurassic age, and is notable as the oldest known 
type of birds. A second species from the same forma- 
tion and locality was named Archceopteryx macrura by 
Owen. The specific identity of the two can neither be 
affirmed nor denied, and their generic identity is only 
presumptive. A third and still more characteristic spec- 
imen is identical with the second, and has furnished 
many additional characters. When found at the begin- 
ning it was thought to form the transition between rep- 
tile and bird; now, however, it is proved to be really a 
bird. A specimen of this genus had a row of twelve 
teeth, of almost equal size, and about one millimetre 
long; its lizard -like tail was formed of twelve vertebrae, 
and it had separate metacarpal bones as well as a carinate 
sternum and other features of modern birds. In the 
wing were counted seventeen pinions, of which six or 
seven were flight-feathers ; its long tail had many steer- 
age-feathers. 3 
1 " Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1887-1888, pp. 333, 334- 
* Ibid., 1885-1886, p. 255. % Ibid., 1886-1887, p. 278. 



THE TERTIARY FLORA. 93 

Only very lately, two German savants, Professor 
Hosius and Dr. Marks, have shown that up to the pres- 
ent time the Westphalian chalk has furnished fifty-eight 
well-preserved fossil fishes, besides the teeth of at least 
thirteen flat and smelting gillaroos, so that the fishes 
found in the Westphalian chalk amount to seventy-one 
species. They all belong to the upper chalk and were 
sea-fish. They are representatives partly of the brack- 
ish-water fauna and partly of the sweet- water fish, whose 
nearest relatives still people the great rivers of South 
America and West Africa. It is a matter of interest 
that the Westphalian fish fauna shows the greatest agree- 
ment with the chalk fishes found at the foot of Mount 
Carmel, in Palestine, and near the city of Beyrout. 1 

58. The Tertiary Flora. — C. von Ettingshausen 
established with certainty 129 species of the tertiary 
flora of Australia. True, there are many species which 
show an essential difference from the Australian flora of 
to-day, but there are also many whose forms are analo- 
gous to the flora now found in that country. 2 Peterson 
and Naumann gathered in Japan a great variety of fossil 
plants from the miocene, pliocene, and post-pliocene, i.e., 
from the tertiary formation. Of these twelve belong to 
the tertiary flora of Alaska, fourteen are represented in 
Europe, and twelve were found, in the Arctic regions. 
Its various representatives are still found to a greater or 
less extent in these countries. 3 Keilbach found in the 
peat strata, on the Elbe, near Lauenburg, which date 
from the diluvial time, twenty-two well-recognizable 
species of plants, and they are all still found in the same 
plain. The sea-thorn (Jiippopha'e rhamnoides) found in the 
south of Sweden in the lime strata proves that this plant 



1 « 



Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1885—1886, p. 256. 
Ibid., 1 887-1 888, p. 336. 
Ibid., 1 889-1 890, p. 370. 



94 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

existed originally in Northern Europe in geological posi- 
tions corresponding to the Alps, hence that it is an Al- 
pine plant. Only at a later period did it wander from 
here to the coast, where it is still found in Sweden as 
well as in Northern Germany. 1 

The comparison of the flora of the glacial period with 
that of our time leads to the same results. There was 
discovered near Hohenhausen, in the canton of Zurich, 
in the midst of a peat marsh, quite a collection of the 
flora of these ages. These fossils are embedded in peat, 
whose formation, according to certain geologists, must 
have taken place between the two glacial epochs. The 
yew-tree, the wild pine, the larch, the birch, the maple, 
the nut-tree (two varieties), have been recognized as 
having existed in an age certainly anterior to ours. 
They have been compared with the same species as they 
now grow, and no difference has been found to exist be- 
tween them. In a word, history and natural science 
prove the stability and permanency of species. The 
Darwinists cannot cite one historical instance of the 
transition of one species to another; their system is 
therefore in contradiction with the facts. Nature is 
not a " transformist, " and Moses spoke the truth when 
he said that God created plants and animals according 
to their kind. 

The transformists themselves have been obliged to 
acknowledge the force and certainty of the facts we 
bring forward in this chapter. They are forced to ad- 
mit that there exists no positive proof of the transforma- 
tion of one animal species into another. Even the fathers 
of the system, Huxley, Haeckel, and Darwin, admit this. 

" According to Huxley, the structure of each animal is 
so well defined, so precisely marked, that in the present 
state of our knowledge no form can be offered as proof 
1 " Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1886-1887, p. 356. 



DARWINISM AND PREHISTORIC TIMES. 95 

of transition from one group to another, from the verte- 
brates to the annelidse, from the mollusks to the coeliacs ; 
no more to-day than in ancient epochs, whose annals 
geology has studied. The positive proofs, the only cer- 
tain and indisputable witnesses on which we count, are 
insufficient to establish any progressive modification of 
animals towards a type less embryonal, less generalized 
in a great number of groups of a long geological period. 
In these groups numerous variations manifest them- 
selves very clearly, but progression, as generally under- 
stood, appears nowhere. The edifice of phylogeny, built 
on these hypotheses, must always, conformably to the 
nature of things, remain incomplete, full of voids, in 
part uncertain, and changing." J 

" He who rejects these views on the imperfection of the 
geological record will rightly reject the whole theory. 
For he may ask in vain where are the numberless tran- 
sitional links which must formerly have connected the 
closely allied or representative species found in the suc- 
cessive stages of the same great 'formation." 2 

59. Darwinism and Prehistoric Times. — It fol- 
lows from the avowals of its own adherents that the 
theory of evolution is in contradiction with the best es- 
tablished facts of history and paleontology. Are these 
admissions not decisive, and have we not the right to 
conclude therefrom that the system is false and decep- 
tive? However, the Darwinists do not acknowledge 
themselves beaten, even after these confessions; they 
say that what is not produced in historic times may 
have been produced in the prehistoric times — hundreds 
of centuries ago — although geology has not preserved any 
trace of these changes and revolutions. A system that 
is obliged to have recourse to the unknown, is no longer 

1 Haeckel," Natiirliche Schopfungeschichte," 7th ed. i879,p.xxiv. 

2 Darwin, " Origin of Species," p. 319. 



g6 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

a scientific system; it does not rest on proofs, but on 
imagination. However, let us follow up the defenders 
of the variability of species on their own lines and show 
them by the light of natural history and experience that 
species such as they are constituted can never have 
changed. 

60. The Sterility of Hybrids Proves the Fixity 
of the Species. — To make the mutability of species, 
that is, the production of new species, possible, the prod- 
ucts of the union of two different species should be able 
to perpetuate themselves indefinitely. Now, experience 
proves that this is not the case. " If the species change, 
hybridization would surely be the most direct and most 
efficacious means to operate the change. On the contrary, 
hybridization is the means which shows most completely 
the fixity of species." 1 All attempts made to produce 
new and permanent species by coupling two different 
species have been without success ; all the efforts of the 
most skilful artificial selection fail, when opposed to the 
laws of nature. True, hybrids can be obtained, that is, 
individuals from parents of different species, such as 
the mule, the result of a union between a male ass and a 
mare, but these hybrids have not the faculty of perpetu- 
ating themselves. 2 

A species can vary almost indefinitely in the forms 
of its representatives without losing its fundamental 
fecundity and the faculty of reproducing itself in all its 
varied forms. The physiological separation of species, 
even of such as are very closely related, is clearly proven 
by the experiments of Darwin himself. He acknowledges 
that the struggle for existence and natural selection 
cannot explain the appearance of an organism. He 

1 Flourens, " Examen du Livre de M. Darwin sur l'Origine des 
Especes," Paris, 1864, p. 91. 

2 Cf. A. Godron, " De l'Espece et des Races," vol. i., p. 197 seq. 



STERILITY OF HYBRIDS PROVES FIXITY OF SPECIES. 97 

makes the same avowal when there is question of 
fecundity, which is supposed at a given moment to sep- 
arate forms physiologically issued from the same stock 
and to transform them into distinct species. 1 

This sterility of hybrids furnishes a decisive proof 
in favor of the fixity of species. The adherents of 
variability have made vain efforts to contest the fact or 
to escape its consequences. It has been denied by Broca, 2 
but maintained in a convincing manner by Quatrefages 3 
and Blanchard. "A doubt exists for science," says the 
latter, ' only with regard to the descent of some species 
very closely related. When one of the elements of pro- 
duction predominates, the other effaces itself; thus the 
independent character of specific types shows itself, and 
the impossibility to constitute a new and independent 
form." 4 "Nobody," says Quatrefages, "believes any 
longer in the fecundity of crosses between animals be- 
longing to different classes or families." 5 

With regard to the vegetable kingdom, the experi- 
ments of M. Naudin, though an evolutionist himself, have 
established that hybrid plants cannot truly perpetuate 
themselves ; after a certain number of generations they 
return naturally and spontaneously to the primitive type 
of the one or the other of the two original species. 6 
Thus Ave can lay it down that in nature there is 
much less tendency to fuse species than to preserve 
the specific characters. This is demonstrated by the 
tendency which cultivated plants and domesticated ani- 

1 Quatrefages, "Note sur Ch. Darwin," in the " Comptes 
Rendus de lAcademie des Sciences," vol. xciv., 1882, p. 1221. 

2 Broca, " Memoires Anthropologues," Paris, 1877, P- 242. 

3 Quatrefages, " L'Espece Humaine,"6thed., 1880, pp. 46, 61. 

4 Blanchard, "L'Origine des Etres," in the " Revue des Deux 
Mondes," Oct. 1, 1874. 

5 Quatrefages, " Ch. Darwin," p. 234. 

c Flourens, " Examen du Livre de Darwin," p. 92 seq. 
7 



gg DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

mals have to return to their original forms. 1 We may 
therefore conclude with Flourens : 

" There are two kinds of fecundity : first, a continued 
fecundity. This is characteristic of species. All varieties 
of horses, dogs, sheep, goats, etc., mingle and produce 
together with continued fecundity. Secondly, there is a 
limited fecundity. This is characteristic of the genus. 
When two distinct species, the dog and the jackal, the 
wolf and the dog, the ram and the goat, the ass and the 
horse, etc., are coupled, they produce offspring which 
will soon be barren ; and this prevents any durable inter- 
mediate species from being established. The horse and 
the ass have been coupled for centuries, but the male and 
female mule do not produce any intermediate species ; for 
centuries the goat and the ram have been coupled ; they 
produce mongrels, but these mongrels have not given 
rise to an intermediate species. Scientists ask what is 
characteristic of genus; where can we find it? It lies m 
the two different kinds of fecundity. Continued fecundity 
marks species; limited fecundity marks genus." 2 

Finally, another fact which militates against the theory 
of evolution is, that the qualitiesof animals are immutable, 
whilst according to Darwin they ought to be changeable. 
The characteristics of insects should have undergone 
some kind of transformation in the course of ages. But 
though they have been observed for many centuries, 
there is no modification, no progress in their instincts. 
The spider weaves its web to day in the same manner 
as it did in the time of Aristotle, and the ant gathers 
provisions just as it did in the time of Solomon. 3 

1 O. Heer, " Le Monde Primitive de la Suisse," p. 763- 

2 " Examen du Livre de Darwin," pp. 113. l T 4- 

^ For a more detailed refutation of Darwinism see Vigouroux, 
"Les Livres Saints et la Critique Rationaliste," 2d ed., Pans, 
1886, pp. 537, 636; also Levand Lestrade, " Transformisme et 
Darwinism," Paris, 1885. 



PLANTS AND ANIMALS SHOW PERMANENCY OF SPECIES. 99 

61. Plants and Animals Show the Permanency 
of Species. — The continued observation of plants and 
animals shows that the transformation of their essential 
qualities and the passing of one species into another 
are contrary to the laws of nature. History has estab- 
lished this cardinal point by every observation which has 
come under its domain. The Darwinists are unable to 
show or name a single specimen of a superior type issu- 
ing forth from an inferior one, or of one species being 
produced from a different species. There may be vari- 
ations, nay, wide variations, within the species, but species 
is not transmutable in its nature and organism. The 
fact established by Darwin is this: natural selection, or, 
to speak more correctly, Divine selection, acting through 
the laws of nature which it has established, can produce 
new races. But Darwin's system is false, inasmuch as 
it confounds the species with the race ; it applies to the 
former what belongs only to the latter. History and 
science agree in affirming with Genesis that species in 
the vegetable and animal world is primitive and irre- 
ducible. ''Natures semper est species et genus" said Lin- 
naeus; 'culture scepius varietas; art is et natures classis ac 
ordo." The breeder and the florist can produce varieties 
and races ; God alone can create species. 

Of the objections urged against Darwinism, the fol- 
lowing is one of the most difficult to meet. The trans- 
formations assumed by Darwin are supposed to have 
been so slow that each species must have required 
a thousand, ten thousand, nay, perhaps a million of 
generations in order to be realized. These figures, 
multiplied by the thousands of species which succeed 
each other in the series since the beginning of life, 
would lead us to millions if not to milliards of years. 
" But," observes Conteyeau, a French savant, and himself 
a transformist, after his way, " before granting so freely 



IOO DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

these assumed periods of centuries, the Darwinist should 
first ask himself whether the earth and the sun, this 
wheel-work so indispensable to the development of life 
upon our planet, have lasted so long. Now, astrono- 
mers and physicists, who alone are competent to decide 
this question, do not seem to be disposed to make this 

concession." 1 

"All these deductions" (of the transf ormists) , re- 
marks Prof. Tait, "are cumulative; but a single fact 
is sufficient to overthrow the pretensions of Lyell and 
Darwin. We may state that it is a conclusion, dem- 
onstrated by natural philosophy, that the maximum of 
the past duration of animal life upon our globe can be 
approximately estimated at some ten to fifty millions of 
years at most, and that the future progress of science 
will never pass this estimate, but, on the contrary, will 
tend to reduce it more and more." 2 

In spite of the great admiration which Quatrefages 
has for the English naturalist, here is what he says of 
his system: "Darwin, as well as his predecessors, heap 
hypothesis upon hypothesis. Now, with the help of all 
these accessory theories, comparisons, and metaphors, 
is it possible to give an explanation of all the facts? 
No, for Darwin himself acknowledges repeatedly, ■' I 
have the conviction, however, that objections like these 
have little weight, and that these difficulties are not in- 
soluble.' But is this conviction a proof," continues 
Quatrefages, " or even an argument ? .... It is to the 
judges appealed to by Darwin that I also address myself. 
It is to minds free from all prejudice, to competent, 
impartial, and intelligent men that I address the ques- 
tion, whether it is permitted, in matters of science, to 
regard personal conviction, or mere possibility, as proof, 

1 " Revue Scientifique," March 6, 1875. 

2 Ibid. 



ACCOUNT AND CRITICISM OF MONISM. IOI 

the unknown as an argument. . . . What is required 
first of all are facts, observations, and the results of 
experiments." ! 

A theory like Darwin's should at least have the 
merit of explaining the phenomena of the biological 
order. But Darwinism is incapable of explaining one 
of the most singular facts in natural history, namely, the 
existence of neutral individuals among bees and ants. 
For how can we understand the fact that fecund bees 
produce sterile bees, and this regularly and normally? 
Here is a deviation from one of the most general rules 
of the organized world. Besides, the fact is in clear 
contradiction to the most fundamental law of heredity 
laid down by Darwin and Lamarck. 

62. Account and Criticism of Monism. — A theory 
intimately connected with Darwinism is Haeckel's 
monism, to which we already drew attention in the 
preceding chapter. Haeckel is the German Darwin; 
he is the culmination of the English Darwin — Darwin 
perfected. Indeed, the latter acknowledges the great 
services which Haeckel has rendered to his cause. 

; This naturalist," he says, "whose views on many 
points are much more complete than mine, has con- 
firmed all the conclusions to which I have been led my- 
self." 

Haeckel, indeed, is more complete than Darwin; he 
has pushed the theory of evolution to its last conse- 
quences ; he has reduced it to a coherent system ; given 
by its means a universal explanation of the world and 
everything that exists, and opposed it to all the tradi- 
tional explanations of the origin of things. 

63. Haeckel's Position among Evolutionists. 

A certain number of German transformists look upon 
Haeckel with some disfavor, and combat many of his 

1 " Ch. Darwin et ses Precurseurs," pp. 167, 170. 



102 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

views which spring from the extravagant ideas he 
expresses in reducing everything to the moneron. He 
is the enfant terrible of the party, but nevertheless he 
received the approval of Darwin, 1 and it is not with- 
out justice that Haeckel answers his adversaries by 
claiming that he pushes his system to its logical conclu- 
sions, whilst they are satisfied to stop half-way. The 
English savant is full of reserve ; he speaks of God, and 
tries to dispel the accusations of irreligion brought up 
against his system. The Jena Professor is more frank; 
he throws down the mask and deduces all the conclu- 
sions contained in the premises advanced by the theory 
of natural selection. Darwinism is rather a biolog- 
ical theory than a philosophical and religious system. 
Monism, on the contrary, is above all a materialistic 
explanation of the origin of things. Darwin occupies 
himself principally in answering the question how, 
and seeks the conditions of existence in what exists; 
Haeckel, before all, wants to know the why, and decides 
the question of cause and origin. Whilst the former 
does not formally exclude final causes, the latter makes 
light of them, and expressly rejects the action of an 
intelligent cause acting after a fixed plan in the work of 
the production of the world. He says: 

" The theory of evolution set up by Darwin necessarily 
leads, when it is pursued to its logical consequences, to 
the admission of the monistic or mechanical conception 
of the world. Contrary to the dualistic or theological 
opinion, the mechanical theory regards the forms of 
both organic and inorganic nature as the products of 
natural forces. In every animal or vegetable species we 
behold not the materialized thought of a personal crea- 
tor, but the transitory expression of a phase of the 
mechanical evolution of matter, the expression of a 

1 Cf. A. Wiegand, " Der Darwinismus," vol. ii., pp. 8i, 82. 



haeckel's monistic religion. 103 

necessarily efficient cause, of a mechanical cause. While 
theological dualism sees in the wonders of creation only 
the arbitrary ideas of a capricious creator, monism or 
unitism, considering the real causes, finds in these evo- 
lutive phases only the necessary effects of natural, eter- 
nal, and insurmountable laws .... Monism is the only 
theory which explains the origin of species in a rational 
manner. If we reject it, all that remains is the irrational 
hypothesis of a miracle, of a supernatural creation." 1 

64. Haeckel's Monistic Religion. — Thus Haeckel 
pretends to build up both a philosophical and a scientific 
system. Nay, more, he has the ambition of founding a 
new religion, a monistic religion, which, according to 
him, will be the religion of the future. Listen to his 
own words : 

" The monistic religion of nature, which we must 
regard as the only true religion of the future, is not, 
like the religions of the Churches, self -contradictory, but 
in harmony with our rational knowledge of nature. 
Whilst the former have no other source than illusions and 
superstitions, the latter rests on both truth and science. 
The simple natural religion, based upon a perfect knowl- 
edge of nature and upon the inexhaustible treasures of 
its revelations, will in the future imprint on human evo- 
lution a seal of nobility which the religious dogmas of 
the different peoples were incapable of bestowing on 
mankind ; for all these dogmas rest upon a blind faith in 
obscure mysteries and mythological revelations formu- 
lated by the sacerdotal caste. Our epoch, which will 
have the glory of establishing scientifically the most 
brilliant results of human knowledge, the doctrine of 
descent, will be celebrated by the coming centuries as 
having inaugurated for the progress of humanity a new 
and fruitful era, characterized by the triumph of free 
1 Haeckel, " Schopftmgsgeschichte," p. 36. 



104 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

research over the domination of authority, by the noble 
and powerful influence of the monistic philosophy." ' 

Thus Haeckel is not only a Darwinist, but also atrans- 
formist in the widest sense of the word ; he is a reformer 
of both philosophy and religion, and a savant at the same 
time. His doctrine admits the theory of descent with 
all its consequences; that is, the eternity of matter, 
spontaneous generation, the primitive existence of eter- 
nal atoms from which everything descends through a 
series of developments and evolutions. 

65. The "Moneron" the Origin of All 
Things. — From the preceding chapter we know that 
Haeckel places at the beginning of all things the so-called 
moneron; hence his system is called monism to indicate 
that it is derived from the most simple primitive being, 
unique in its nature and without any composing parts. 
From the moneron, which constitutes the first link in the 
organic chain, the amoeba developed; this is a simple 
protoplasmic cell, containing a nucleus, but already en- 
dowed with sensibility and will.' 2 Afterwards, several 
of these cells associating together begin to form what 
Haeckel calls synamcebse. 3 This is the third link 
of the series. In their turn, these synamcebse, which 
have no longer any representative in nature, became suc- 
cessively ciliated larvae, shapeless worms, lampreys, sala- 
manders, inferior monkeys, anthropoids, and, finally, men. 
According to Haeckel, there are twenty-two links which 
separate man from his primitive ancestor— the moneron. 

66. Monism is Incapable of Establishing the Fil- 
iation of Species. — As monism is incapable of ex- 
plaining the origin of the world and of life, it is still 
less able to establish the filiation of species and the ori- 

1 Haeckel, " Schopfungsgeschichte." 

2 Haeckel, " Anthropogenic" p. 87. 

3 Ibid., p. 338. 



MONISM AND THE FILIATION OF SPECIES. IO 



D 



gin of man; the last point we shall prove in another 
chapter. In our criticism of Darwin's system we saw 
that it is not at all scientifically proved that a single 
species descends from another species by way of 
generation and evolution. According to transformism, 
one species arises from another by the gradual and 
insensible transformation of the type, by the accumu- 
lation of variations at first extremely slight and almost 
imperceptible, which finally constitute quite different 
beings, and, in the course of centuries, evolve from the 
primitive moneron man as we see him with his different 
races. But Haeckeland his adherents do not bring for- 
ward one single positive and direct proof in support of 
their assertions. They simply pile hypothesis upon 
hypothesis. They erect an imaginary scaffolding with- 
out giving to it a basis in fact. Their theory of the evo- 
lution of species by descent is supported by no proof. 
Albert Gaudry, Professor of Paleontology at the Museum 
in Paris, who believes in evolution and in the slow and 
progressive development of species, acknowledges this. 
He says: 

" To tell the whole truth, we have to add that the actual 
state of science hardly allows us to go any further ; it 
does not allow us to pierce the mystery which surrounds 
the primitive development of the great classes of the ani- 
mal world. No man knows how were formed the prim- 
itive individuals of theforaminifera, echini, cephalopods, 
trilobites, insects, etc. . . . The primary fossils have 
not yet furnished us positive proof of the passing of 
animals from one class to another class. I acknowledge 
that when I commenced to study the reptiles of the Per- 
mian age, which in certain regards present characters of 
inferiority, I expected to find them related to fishes; 
but I have established just the contrary." 2 

1 A. Gaudry, " Fossiles Primaires," Paris, 1883, p- 292. 



io 6 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

Other eminent paleontologists tell us the same fact : 
" For twenty-five years I have followed the fossiliferous 
discoveries in the Belgian plain, isolating them carefully 
one from the other. . . . I have not yet found the transi- 
tion of two well-determined types, either in time or m 
form" (Gosselet). "One thing is certain, that all the 
testimonies from the fossil flora are opposed to the doc- 
trine of development due to evolution by filiation " 
(Carruthers) . " On the one hand, all the facts are in 
favor of independent creation ; on the other, they are 
equally contrary to transmutation" (Grand Eury). 1 

67. A Last Ray of Hope.— However, another ray 
of hope is left to transformists. The adherents of trans- 
formism are pleased to insist upon recent discoveries 
in paleontology and the, numerous gaps which they have 
filled up in the scale of beings. They live in hopes that 
the day will arrive when no void will be left, when each 
species will closely follow the preceding one, without 
the least abrupt transition, insensibly and by degrees, 
so that they will form a continued chain without any 

break 

Conteyeau, a freethinker who denies God and miracles, 
says: " These brilliant views are pure illusions. If this 
chain of beings is to have a questionable existence, the 
difficultv of which has been lost sight of too often, it 
would be necessary first to prove the transition of one 
species into another, and to make known the forms which 
connected them together. With a little attention we 
will soon be convinced that the intermediate links be- 
tween classes, orders, genera, and even species, have no 
significance, because they allow numerous gaps to subsist. 
The continual discoveries of paleontology only prove 
that the frames of the organic world, considered as a 
whole, are infinitely more complete than those of living 
1 Cf. " Revue Scientifique," April, 1879. 



MONISM AND THE FILIATION OF SPECIES. 107 

nature. Fossil families, genera, species, insert them- 
selves between other families, other kinds, other species, 
without the distance which separates the specific types di- 
minishing in the least on this account. We can compare 
species to the soldiers of a company which continually re- 
ceives new recruits ; the ranks fill up, but the men are not 
distinguished from one another on this account. Hence 
it is between the species that we should discover links ; 
but these links do not exist. Unless we suppose that 
species are formed, not gradually, but by abrupt leaps, 
and without links (which would be contrary to the trans- 
f ormist doctrine *) , we must admit that the intermediate 
forms that ought to mark the transformation of two speci- 
fically related types must be represented by particular 
forms which we ought to find in the fossil state. But if 
we admit such forms, then these transitional forms would 
be infinitely more numerous than the known species; 
besides — and I cannot insist too strongly upon this point 
— the specific types lost in this multitude of intermediate 
forms could not be distinguished from one another, or, 
in other terms, could not exist. Now, what took place 
is just the contrary." 

To escape this difficulty, the transformists have de- 
vised the theory of migrations. When, for instance, 
they are told that no intermediate form between the hip- 
parion 2 and the horse of to-day is known, the answer is: 
That is not astonishing; the being you seek is found 
only in a region remote from where these animals used 
to live ; otherwise it could not have transformed itself. 

1 We must remember that, according to the transformists, one 
species arises from another by the gradual and insensible trans- 
formation of the type, by an accumulation of variations, at first 
extremely small and almost imperceptible, which finally give rise 
to quite different beings. 

2 The hipparion is a genus of miocene or pliocene horse. 



I08 DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

It is in a strange country (perhaps in Lemuria, where our 
anthropoids used to live) and under a different climate 
that you may meet the middle term in question. 

Certainly, such a theory is very convenient, in the sense 
that it permits the transformists to answer all diffi- 
culties drawn from paleontology; but it is gratuitous, 
arbitrary, and presents, to say the least, a high degree 
of improbability, for which reason it was rejected even 
by most Darwinists. Indeed, great effort is needed to 
imagine a long voyage to and fro, in order to explain 
the formation of each species; moreover, species are 
counted by thousands in the different strata and in the 
various epochs. It seems, therefore, impossible that they 
should not have left, here and there, a little bone, some 
traces of the intermediate links. 

The forms of transition, the intermediate species 
claimed by the theory of Haeckel, are absolutely wanting, 
whilst they should be infinitely more numerous than the 
species. Traces of an unfinished being have never been 
found, of a being imperfect in its kind, while becoming 
"provided with new organs, "in the processof formation, 
and really transitional. The absence of these essential 
proofs is a fact; it is childish in Haeckel to hide himself 
behind a heap of hypotheses without an iota of proof, and 
to draw premature conclusions in favor of an unsupported 
system, which he hands down to posterity in the hope of 
its being received and established by discoveries which 
time may bring to light. On the other hand, it is well 
to remark that if it be true that thus far only a part of 
the organisms of each country is known, it is also true 
that we possess such remains from the greatest part of 
the earth's surface. Now, everywhere the organic pro- 
ducts are the same; we meet the same abrupt appear- 
ances, the same absence of transitional forms. Finally, 
besides the intermediate types which have already been 



CONSOLATION OF THE CHRISTIAN. IO9 

discovered or which, it is likely, will be discovered, 
there are and there will be abnormal types, whose origin 
is completely inexplicable, and among the intermediate 
types themselves there are such as are links as regards 
form, but not as regards the time of their appearance ; 
for example, the type gyroceras, intermediate between 
the nautilus and lituiter, appeared long after both of 
these. 

The inequality in the evolutionary types during the 
primary period is evident, and does not confirm the 
theory of a struggle for life. Paleontology suggests the 
contrary; some of the strongest animals passed away, 
while the smallest survived. The superior vital force 
of inferior beings sometimes is found to consist in their 
weakness (Gaudry). 

68. Consolation of the Christian. — It is the con- 
solation of the defenders of Christian doctrine that error 
passes and truth survives. The light of the sun can be 
obscured for a moment by thick clouds, but it dispels 
them finally. Transformism makes continual appeals to 
the unknown future in order not to be found flagrantly 
guilty of falsehood ; it does not affirm what it cannot 
prove in its own way, but it invokes now the possible, 
now the past or the future, which cannot be called to 
account. Such is its answer to the objections which are 
made against it. All experience is contrary to spontane- 
ous generation, which serves as its starting-point. After 
resorting to all kinds of scientific quibbles and to verbal 
sophistry, the final answer is : Some day we will be able 
to establish the existence of spontaneous generation ! 
Nowhere have the links been met which genealogically 
bind one species to another. Transformism answers: 
they will be met with later on. The learned have 
looked in vain for man's ancestor, even the pithecoid 
monkey. Transformism answers: the pithecoid is 



HO DARWINISM AND MONISM. 

buried in the ancient continents, submerged to-day by 

the waters. 

But a time will come when reason will assert its power 
over the human mind, when those who are misled by 
the materialistic mirage will perceive the illusion and see 
clearly that all these pretended answers and quibbles 
have no foundation in fact, are not reasonable deductions 
from the laws of nature, are not consistent with the ex- 
periments of science. Then they will recognize that 
reason in harmony with faith demands a Creator, in 
order to account for the origin of the universe and of 
ourselves; then they will admit that what Christians 
believe is the truth, and that the best, the only explana- 
tion of the order of the world and the hierarchy of 
species is the explanation of Genesis. The existence 
of a plan in creation which has inspired such beautiful 
pages from Fenelon and many other illustrious and 
shining lights of Christianity, will always remain true. 



CHAPTER III. 

ORIGIN OF MAN. 

AVhat is man? — Whence does he come? — Different methods fol- 
lowed to arrive at the knowledge of man. — Man's origin and 
nature. — Teachings of faith. — Scientific certainties. — Har- 
mony between faith and true science. — Pseudo-scientific 
systems. — Man's immediate ancestor. — Professor Mivart's 
theory. — Can it be maintained? — Conclusion. 

The development of life in nature reaches its highest 
perfection and crown in man. Despite evolution and 
materialistic theories, man must have a distinct place 
in the plan and order of creation — a place becoming his 
rank, intelligence, and power over all created beings. 

69. What is Man and Whence does he Come? — 
Man is so differently viewed by different thinkers that it is 
not surprising to hear him styled — son of God, king of 
creation, microcosm, glory and wonder of the universe 
(Darwin), thinking reed, an animal which knows how to 
make tools, an animal which can laugh, the last product of 
the creative soil, a perfected monkey, the first of the 
primates, etc. 

What is man ? Is he formed of one substance only ? 
Is he only a little organized matter, endowed with some 
movement for a very short time, an invisible atom in 
the great whirlpool of life, in the immensity of the 
worlds? Or is he, on the contrary, a composition of 
two substances essentially distinct and united in one 
person, of a body and a soul, according to the traditional 
belief of centuries? 

Whence does man come? Did he always inhabit this 



ILI 



112 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

terrestrial globe upon which lie reigns as master? How 
did he appear for the first time? At what time, in 
what place? Is he simply the highest step in the 
ascending scale of the animal series, or has he the right 
to a distinct place in nature ? Must he maintain his place 
as the highest embodiment of corporal and spiritual 
existence, apart from all the rest of visible creation? 

What is the destiny of man's body, which can see and 
touch itself, which forms a part of the Ego, which moves, 
lives, palpitates, grows, declines, and dies? What be- 
comes of it after the grave— after the disintegration of the 
elements of which it is composed? And the soul? — the 
"unknown cause of exclusively human phenomena" 
(Quatref ages) , which we call the Ego. Can it exist 
separated from the body— isolated from all matter? 
Will it really exist in a future life ? Will it be completed 
anew— furnished with organs ? And then ! Where will 
it be ? Will the worlds which surround us — the infinite 
worlds — will they be of its domain? 

Is this thirst for life, light, love, and happiness— this, 
insatiable thirst which devours us — a snare, a cruel 
enemy, or an intuitive foretaste, an infallible presenti- 
ment, a Divine promise? And this word which ravishes 
and terrifies at the same time — immortality f this word 
which is not the infinite, but almost as crushing for the 
human thought as the infinite— immortality, eternity ; 
will eternity be my dwelling-place, will I be a guest of 

eternity ? 

It would be difficult to conceive a series of scientific 
or philosophical questions which are more important and 
more absorbing, for to answer them is to know what we 
are to-day and what we shall be to-morrow. 

70. Man's Origin and Nature ; Teaching of 
Faith.-— What does faith teach us concerning the 
origin and nature of man? It teaches us that God is the 



SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTIES ABOUT MAN. 1 13 

origin and end of man ; it teaches us the personal union 
of a material body and of a spiritual, free, responsible 
and, consequently, immortal soul. 

The creation of Adam and Eve is related in clear terms 
at the beginning of our Sacred Books; the narrative 
there found excludes any doubt of the direct interven- 
tion of the Creator. 

All men who have existed since Adam and Eve, who 
exist to-day, who form or will form part of the human 
family, descend from this primitive and only pair. Let 
us ask now what science teaches. 

71. Man's Origin and Nature; Scientific Certain- 
ties. — What are the teachings of science with regard 
to the origin of mankind?- One of its best-informed 
representatives to-day is Quatrefages, who answers our 
question as follows: "Some men, eminent in science 
and rich in imagination, have thought that they could 
dispense with observation and experience. Others have 
resisted the impulse of the time and. remained faithful 
to method, the mother of modern science. ... As 
warmly as the most fiery partisans of the so-called 
advanced theories, they have applauded all true pro- 
gress; they have welcomed as enthusiastically every 
new idea, on condition of exposing it to the tests of 
experiment and observation. But when they met with, 
questions which cannot be solved now, and which perhaps 
will never be solved, they did not hesitate to answer: We 
do not know. I venture to say that I have always remained 
in the ranks of this phalanx, to which the future cer- 
tainly belongs. For this reason, to those who question 
me on the problem of our origin, I do not hesitate to 
answer in the name of science: I do not know." ' 

72. Scientific Certainties about Man.— In these 
lines, written yesterday, there is nothing to be changed 
' Quatrefages, "L'Espece Humaine," vol. ii. ch xi 
8 



II4 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

to-day. Every anthropologist faithful to the principles 
of scientific method agrees with Quatrefages. But 
alongside of these, sciolists who have often displayed 
shallow views touching certain truths of scientific cer- 
tainties on the origin of man have made their appear- 
ance. These truths are: man did not always exist on 
earth ; long geological periods passed before his appear- 
ance. ' His existence is scientifically established only 
at the epoch called quaternary— the last of all. Tertiary 
man is undoubtedly a myth ; but even if he were proved, 
the conclusions would, be the same. The origin of the 
human species is relatively recent. 

By his nature, by his physical, physiological, intellec- 
tual and moral characters, man occupies the highest place 
in the animal kingdom ; his royalty in creation is uni- 
versally conceded and beyond question; it is acknowl- 
edged as a royalty de facto, if not by divine right, by all 
anthropologists, even by the most obstinate defenders 
of transformism and materialistic doctrines. 

" All men are of the same species. . . . There exists 
only one human species. The facts so far collated 
authorize us to look upon the plain of Central Asia as 
the cradle of the human species." 1 The teaching con- 
tained in these propositions is not given with the same 
unanimity, but it possesses all the characters of real cer- 
tainty. On account of the number and the nature of the 
facts on which it is based, on account of the number and 
authority of the savants who maintain it, it can be re- 
garded as the teaching of anthropological science at the 

present hour. 

73. Harmony between Faith and True Science.— 
Here as upon many other points, we find that the 
teaching of the Bible and of faith agrees with the an- 
swers to the gravest problems solved by science, 
» Quatrefages, " L'Espece Humaine," vol. ii„ ch. xi. 



HARMONY BETWEEN FAITH AND TRUE SCIENCE. I I 5 

On man's origin, the Bible affirms, faith defines, posi- 
tive science affirms nothing ; it " does not know. " Hence 
there is and can not be any conflict with regard to this 
point. 

On the question of the date of man's origin, of the ap- 
pearance of man in the series of living beings, the Bible 
and nature, faith and science, each following the prin- 
ciples and method which are proper to it, arrive at the 
same conclusion: man is the last term of creation. 

As to the question of the rank man holds in nature, the 
methods of science and faith are different, but the con- 
clusion is still the same: Man is the highest term of 
creation. 

On the question of descent, faith teaches the unity of 
the human species; the immense majority of savants 
affirms and demonstrates monogenism ; positive anthro- 
pology is monogenistic. The Bible and science agree in 
assigning to mankind the same cradle, in the centre of 
the same continent. 

In this harmony of faith and science there is nothing 
forced; no violence is done to the doctrine, to the text 
of Scripture, to the scientifically manifest laws of nature. 
Before the discoveries of geology and paleontology, 
without revelation nobody could even have surmised 
that man had appeared last, at the end of numerous geo- 
logical transformations, after long periods of purely ani- 
mal life. The Bible has taught for thirty centuries what 
science could establish only with difficulty since yes- 
terday. 

Huxley, borrowing from the inspired Book, which he 
rejects, one of its most striking figures, seems to pity 
those who " waste their lives in attempting to put the new 
and generous wine of science into the old utricles of 
Judaism." The new wine of science, generous as it 
may be, will be preserved in the old utricles of Juda- 



H 6 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

ism, which have become, by a Testament in good and 
due form, the utricles of Christianity, as the not less 
tumultuous waters of the ocean are kept in the old bed 
which the hand of God has dug for them. 1 

74. Pseudo-scientific Systems : the Natural 
Origin of Mankind, or the Animal Descent of 
Man.— Unfortunately, not all anthropologists have either 
the frankness or the reserve of Quatrefages when there 
is question of the origin of man. There is a young 
school too much infatuated with itself to humbly con- 
fess its inability to solve a problem of such importance, 
and as its principle and its end are to exclude the 
supernatural, it does not hesitate to affirm the animal 
origin of man, though neglecting to bring the proof 
for its assertion. Its principal representatives are 
mainly in Europe : in France, M. Mortillet, the legislator 
of pre-historic science ; in England, Darwin, who has 
given his name to the transformist system most in vogue ; 
in Germany, Haeckel, the best known, and. the cleverest 
of his adherents ; in Switzerland, Karl Vogt, who has the 
doubtful honor of not being surpassed by anybody m 
impiety, not even by our American Ingersoll, whom we 
may consider as the representative of the above school 

in our country. 

For the men of the above school man is nothing else 
than a mammifer, whose organization, needs, sicknesses 
are the most complicated, whose brain and admirable 
functions have attained, the highest degree of develop- 
ment As such he is subject to the same laws as the 
rest of animals; as such he shares their origin and 

their end. 

Professions of faith of this kind can no longer be 
counted. Some years ago the Revue des Deux Maudes 
published an article by Ch. Richet, Director of the Revue 
1 Duihle, " Apologie Scientifique," ch. xvi. 



PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS. Ii; 

Ecclesiastiqnc, on the " King of Animals." The impor- 
tance and publicity of this document gave a particular 
significance to the conclusions of the author, who says : 

"All organic beings form one chain of life, which ap- 
pears interrupted only in consequence of our ignorance 
of forms that are extinct or have disappeared. In this 
hierarchy of beings man is found in the first rank. It 
is not only by descent or by birth that man is one and the 
same with the animal, but also, perhaps, by his death 
and destinies. 

"The same organs, the same appearance, the same 
functions; the same birth, the same life, the same 
death. . . . There are no longer two ways of dying, 
one for the demi-god man, the other for the simple ani- 
mal ; both perish in the same manner. The heart ceases 
to beat, the respiration stops, the nervous system loses 
its properties; afterwards, the chemical atoms which 
constitute the body separate and go to form other com- 
binations. The carbon and oxygen of man's body are 
not of a different nature from the carbon and oxygen 
of the body of other animals. . . . Therefore, it may be 
considered as proved that there is no impassable abyss 
between man and the animal." 

This is what is asserted in the name of physiology and 
psychology. 1 Poetry even takes its turn. 

" My dog is sitting before me and looks straight into 
my eyes, and I, too, am looking into his. ... I under- 
stand there is no difference between us. We are the 
same; in each of us oscillates the same little tremb- 
ling flame. Death will befall us both, and strike us 
with its large, cold wing. Who will recognize after- 
wards the difference between the little flames which 
were in him and in me?" 2 

1 "Revue des Deux Mondes," Feb. 15, 1883, pp. 819-821. 

2 Tourgenief, " Petits Poemes en Prose." 



H8 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

" Man, both in his corporal and his spiritual being, is 
a mere chemical product of matter." ' " His being is the 
sum of the combined actions of the atoms of his body 
and the exterior world ; a pure product of the corporal 
change of matter, which judiciously puts itself into mo- 
tion and continually moves until its dissolution. It is 
nonsense to believe that a higher power breathes a spirit 
and soul into the foetus. " 2 " The moneron which digs for 
phosphate of lime seeks more than gold ; it digs for wheat 
for man. It raises the treasure of the spirit (for with- 
out phosphorus, no thought), which the farmer puts into 
circulation, reserving for the wheel of time its own 

force." 3 

Such is the doctrine of materialism on the nature of 
man. Let us listen to its doctrine about his origin. 

"The organic beings that people the earth owe their 
origin and propagation only to a combination of the nat- 
ural forces and materials that are in them. These are 
the germs of everything living, endowed with the idea * 
of genus from all eternity, and waiting for the action 
of certain external circumstances in the formless atmo- 
spheric mass, out of which the earth was gradually 
formed. These germs were present in space, and after 
their formation and cooling settled upon the earth, but 
were hatched and developed only by chance, in some cases 
when both the unity and generality of external condi- 
tions were present." 5 

The proceeding in detail was the following: "Man 
developed from the primordial slime of eternal mat- 
ter partly owing to accident, partly of necessity, by 
the throwing and mixing together" (says Vogt; Buchner 

1 Buchner, " Kraft und Stoff," p. 286. 2 Ibid., p. 159. 

3 Moleschott, " Kreislauf des Lebens." 

4 These germs, according to Buchner, were a box of Pandora. 

5 Buchner, op. cit., pp. 78, 9 1 - 



NO PERSONAL CREATOR NEEDED ANY LONGER. I 1 9 

calls it combination) "of the materials of trie first or- 
ganic cells. From this original genesis arose at first 
the vegetable, then the animal forms, which, through 
infinite changes (metamorphoses), finally developed 
into the ape. The first man sprung from the ape; 
at the breast of the she-monkey he sucked his mother's 
milk." 

Haeckel is more exact about the matter. According 
to Darwin, man descends from a monkey, but Haeckel 
wants to know the pedigree of the monkey. He is right, 
and he also succeeded, in finding it in the moneron which 
' is neither plant nor animal, and is in fact without or- 
ganism ; a shapeless, simple, homogeneous protoplasm, 
a lump of jelly, in which the thing itself, not larger than 
a pin's head, was enveloped." Now we know our an- 
cestor. Of course, this moneron obtained its living or- 
ganic form through spontaneous generation, so Haeckel 
tells us, using a brand-new word — autogony. Hence no 
Creator is needed any longer, and according to Haeckel 
and his adherents, He was never needed. 

75. No Personal Creator Needed Any Longer. 

Darwin made a mistake in still accepting a Creator for a 
few primitive species, or at least for one. His more ad- 
vanced followers do not need a Creator at all ; they can 
explain things without Him. Bronn, the translator of 
DarAvin's book on the "Origin of Species," adds: "If a 
personal creative act is necessary, then it is quite indif- 
ferent to us whether the first creative act dealt with 
only one or with ten or with one hundred thousand 
species, or whether it did this once and for all times 
to come, or whether it repeated this from time to time. 
The question is not, how many species of organisms it 
called into existence, but whether it was necessary at 
all to meddle with the wonderful workings of nature 
and to assist its creative laws? When Darwin attacks 



120 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

creation in general, then, according to our conviction, 
he must renounce creation for the first alga." 1 The 
words of T. V. Bischoff have a similar sound. He sees 
in creation a very critical and dangerous restraint of our 
inquiries. But Vogt's literal expression is the climax 
of all : " The Creator must be put out of doors uncere- 
moniously, and we cannot allow the least room for the 
operations of such a being." 2 

However, Haeckel's moneron, our great-grandsire, 
like the rest of the human beings had its weak points 
when brought before the light of reason and sober judg- 
ment. Let us examine it. 

76. The Precursor of Man no Longer Found 
among the Living. — When anthropologic monism 
attempted to support its a priori doctrine of the 
animal descent and the purely natural origin of man 
by facts, when it attempted to pass from theoretic fancy 
to positive science, the first difficulty which presented 
itself was to determine what is the last term of animal 
evolution, the immediate ancestor of man. 3 None of the 
actual anthropoid monkeys can pretend to that honor; 
the warmest adherents of the animal descent of man 
are agreed on this point. The ancestor of man no 
longer exists among the living; he cannot be found 
even among the dead ; not even the least fragment of 
his skeleton is left to us. On this second point also 
the agreement is unanimous. 

77. The Godfathers Not Happily Inspired.— 
Although there was no certainty at all about the matter, 
nevertheless some believed they had found the fossil re- 
mains of man's ancestor, and immediately proceeded to 

1 " Ueber die Verschiedenheit der Schadelbildung des Gorilla," 

pp. 79. 81. 

2 Vogt, " Vorlestmgen iiber den Menschen," p. 133. 

3 Tourgenief, " Petits Poemes en Prose." 



MANS ANCESTORS. 12 1 

give him a name. The eozoon ' and bathybius also had 
been baptized prematurely. But on this occasion the 
godfathers were less happily inspired, for they selected 
a name that is less poetic and harmonious. Our 
simian ancestor will, if ever discovered, be called 
Pitliecanthropus or Ant hropopit keens, according as he will 
appear to be more nearly related to monkeys or to 
man; or perhaps the name of Homo alahis will be given 
him as the name nearest to the Homo sapiens of Linnaeus ; 
for it is a settled fact with these gentlemen that the 
immediate ancestor of man and woman was dumb ; the 
monkey theorists wish it so. 

From the scientific label to the learned and detailed 
description the distance is not great. The road is the 
more pleasing the less one needs to fear refutation by 
facts. Charles Darwin, however, did not abuse the sit- 
uation; he shows himself more modest, even a little 
vague. He says: 

78. Man's Ancestors. — "Man is descended from a 
hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, 
and an inhabitant of the Old World. This creature, if 
its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist, 
would have been classed amongst the quadrumana as 
surely as the still more ancient progenitor of the Old and 
New World monkeys. The quadrumana and all the 
higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient 
marsupial animal, and this through a long line of 
diversified forms from some amphibian-like creature, 
and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim 
obscurity of the past we can see that the early progenitor 
1 A supposed fossil animal discovered some years ago in Canada 
in the Laurentian rock; hence it is called Eozoon Canade?ise. 
The discovery caused a great noise at the time. However, to- 
day most geologists and naturalists doubt, and not without reason, 
whether the Eozoon Canadense was really an organic being at 
all. 



I2 2 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

of all the vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, 
provided with branchiae, with the two sexes united in 
the same individual, and with the most important 
organs of the body (such as the brain and heart) imper- 
fectly or not at all developed. This animal seems to have 
been more like the larvae of the existing marine ascid- 
ians than any other known form." ' 

Thus, according to Darwin, man's immediate ancestor 
was some kind of a monkey with " pointed ears" ; he 
does not tell us whether he could move his ears at pleas- 
ure or not. If he could, then surely the human species 
seems to be degenerating. 

79. Man's Ancestors are Twenty-two.— While 
Darwin is somewhat vague and uncertain about 
man's lineage, Haeckel is more precise. The latter also 
succeeded in discovering our progenitor in the famous 
moneron, Bathybius Hacckelii, in the depths of the ocean. 
Thd sole survivor of man's prehistoric ancestors is the 
lancelet (amphioxus), which we must therefore regard, 
with special veneration as the only animal now existing 
which can enable us to form an approximate conception 
of our Silurian vertebrate ancestor. 2 

It was Huxley who, in 1863, in his book " Man's Place 
in Nature," was the first to teach that our species de- 
scends from an ape. The German transformist accepted 
this opinion, and has since defended it with the ardor 
which is so characteristic of him : 

" The catarrhinian monkeys, provided with a tail, 
sprang from prosimians by the transformation of their 
set of teeth and the change of the claws into nails ; this 

1 Darwin, " The Descent of Man," p. 609. 

2 Haeckel defends this view in his " Anthropogenic" p. 337, and 
there repeats that the amphioxus is " flesh of our flesh and blood 
of our blood." This, he assures us twice over, " is the most in- 
teresting of the vertebrate animals after man." 



man's ancestors are twenty-two. 123 

probably happened since the tertiary age. The an- 
thropoids descended from the catarrhinians. . . . For 
this reason the latter had to lose their tail and partly 
their hair also; besides the cerebral skull predomin- 
ated over the facial skull. . . . These ancestors belonged 
to the miocene period. . . . The man-monkey very prob- 
ably lived towards the end of the tertiary age. From 
the anthropoids, owing to improved habits and more 
complete differentiation of the two pairs of extremities, 
he derives his erect position. The anterior extremities 
became the hands of man, the posterior the feet. Al- 
though these men-monkeys were not only by their ex- 
terior conformation, but also by the development of their 
intellectual faculties, nearer to the .true man than the 
anthropoids, nevertheless they were wanting in the 
peculiarity really characteristic of man — articulate lan- 
guage, with the development of intelligence and of 
consciousness which is inseparable therefrom. The ex- 
istence of primitive men. deprived of speech is a fact of 
which every serious mind can find the proof in compara- 
tive linguistics, or the comparative science of language, 
and especially in the history of the evolution of language 
in the child and in every people. . . . True, man pro- 
ceeds from the anthropoids by the gradual transformation 
of animal cries into articulate sounds. The development 
of the faculty of speech naturally caused that of the or- 
gans which corresponded thereto, that is of the larynx 
and of the brain .... The transition of the man-monkey 
deprived of speech into the perfect man endowed with 
language took place by degrees." 1 

According to Haeckel, the genealogy of man is a 
very long one. Twenty-two animal forms mark the 
line of development, and are the principal halting- 
places in nature's progression from the moneron to 

1 Haeckel, " Geschichte der Schopfung," pp. 580,581. 



I2 4 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

man. Let us give the main outlines of this long and 
mysterious genealogy, which is enough to provoke a smile 
or draw a tear of compassion for one who is so deluded 
as to believe that the noblest work of God is, after all, 
only an animal developed from a lump of jelly, a cone- 
shaped worm, a dog-fish, a kangaroo, an orang-outang, 
etc. According to Haeckel, our ancestors, after having 
been at first mere inorganic matter, were endowed with 
life through spontaneous generation; man by degrees 
crept along the ascending scale from a moneron, an 
amoeba, a synamoeba (morula) , a ciliated larva (planula) , a 
gasteropod, an accelomate (turbinated) worm, a scolopen- 
drous worm, a sacciform worm (ascidia), an acranian 
(amphioxus), the most ancient of the vertebrates, a 
monorrhine (lamprey), a dog-fish (fish of the shark spe- 
cies) , a mud-fish (vertebrate standing between fish and 
amphibia), an amphibian like the celebrated Proteus 
anguineus, which inhabits the grotto of Adelsberg, a 
tailed batrachian (resembling the present salamanders 
and newts); then, in the secondary period, a beaked 
animal (ornithostoma) , resembling the ornithorhynchus 
of Australia and Tasmania (Ornitkorhynchus paradoxus 
and Echidna hystrix), a marsupial (resembling the kan- 
garoos) ;in the beginning of the tertiary period, a semi- 
ape (prosimia), a tailed ape, catarrhinus, with a narrow 
nose, a cheek pouch and tail, an anthropoid (without a 
tail, resembling the orang, gibbon, gorilla, and chim- 
panzee), the pithecanthropus or man-monkey, and 

finally the real man. 1 

Of course, Haeckel does not consider himself obliged 
to furnish the proof of all he advances. His whole ar- 
gumentation is based on theoretical considerations, as he 

1 See the genealogical tree of man in the " Anthropogeny," pi. 
xi. The first twenty-two are described in the " Geschichte der 
Schopfung," pp. 500, 515. 



HAECKEL CRITICISED. 12 5 

is obliged to confess himself, on a simple reasoning of 
fitness; he must escape the miracle of creation. This 
is what is presented to us as experimental science. 

80. Haeckel Severely Criticised. — However, in 
order to be just towards his party, we must not omit to 
inform our readers that Haeckel was severely criticised 
for this by his own adherents. Vogt, one of the most 
zealous, giving an account of what he calls his "large 
book," the Anthropology, qualifies his Darwinism as 
exaggerated, and he adds: "'If M. De Quatrefages is 
too modest when he says, / do not know, M. Haeckel, 
on the contrary, knows everything. For him there is 
nothing obscure; everything is proved to evidence. 
From the amorphous moneron up to speech-endowed 
man, all the stages are determined by induction, their 
number fixed at twenty or twenty-two, and all these 
phases are placed in the corresponding geological ages. 
Nothing is wanting. Unfortunately, this complete and 
this well-managed genealogical tree, like Roland's horse, 
shows one single small defect. As life was wanting to 
the paladin's horse, so reality is lacking to Haeckel's 
pedigree. Every step is traced by means of imaginary 
beings, of the existence of which nobody ever found any 
proof, but which nevertheless must be looked upon as 
entirely real beings. If they have not been found as 
yet, they will be later on, or their constitution was such 
that they were not preserved in geological strata." 

These are wise words, but is the system of Vogt 
any better than that which he criticises so severely? 
According to him, man descends from the annelides or 
worms, and did not pass through the ascidians and amphi- 
oxus, as the Jena Professor pretends. Vogt goes further, 
and in a memoir crowned by the Society for Anthro- 
pology, Paris, he denies that any species of the now ex- 
isting monkeys can be looked upon as representing one 



126 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

of the phases through which mankind passed in the course 
of development. According to him, we have to go 
further back in order to find the common ancestor of the 
primates, the family in which he places man. 

This categorical avowal does not hinder the Geneva 
Professor from proclaiming occasionally the simian ori- 
gin of man, and, what is more, to pride himself on it, be- 
cause, as he says : " It is better to be a perfected ape than 
a degenerated Adam." ' Being a polygenist as well as 
an adherent of the evolutionary system, he asks himself 
whether we could not derive the American Indian from 
American monkeys ; the negroes from African monkeys, 
and the negroids from the monkeys of Asia. Vogt often 
contradicts himself ; for in one place he denies our de- 
scent from the existing monkeys, in another, as a trans- 
formist, he pushes this doctrine to such extremes that 
he denies the possibility of determining the transition of 
one race of men to the next. But the advantage of op- 
posing orthodox doctrine on all these points justifies, 
it appears, all his contradictions. 

Such is the evolutionary and materialistic doctrine on 
the origin of man; such are the hypotheses, the affirma- 
tions, the fantastic amplifications to which it has given 

rise. 

81. Mivart's View about Man's Bodily Origin. — 
The most important question connected with this sub- 
ject is the relation of faith to the theory of development. 
We have seen before what faith teaches us with regard 
to the origin of man — God is the origin and end of man. 
His person is made up of a material body and a spiritual, 
free, responsible, and consequently immortal, soul. Just 
as the soul of the first man was created immediately by 
God, so also the soul of every man is created by Him. 
These are propositions from which we are not allowed 

1 " Legons sur 1'Homme," 1878. 



MIVART 'S VIEW ABOUT MAN'S BODILY ORIGIN. 12 J 

to deviate, and all the faithful are bound to accept them 
without any misgiving or doubt. There cannot be any 
question as to the development of the human soul, as to 
its origin and nature. Matter by itself can never pro- 
duce spirit; every true philosophical thinker has to 
admit this, and faith does not leave any doubt upon 
this subject. 

But what of man's body? Here we come to speak of 
a view which has already caused a good deal of com- 
ment, surprise, and quarrelling among European Catho- 
lics, and also to some extent among the highly educated 
Catholics of America. There is no question here of the 
theories of man's descent as set forth by Darwin, 
Haeckel, and their followers; we are now examining the 
hypothesis of Professor Mivart, according to which the 
theory of descent should find its application in the form- 
ation of the body of the first man. Professor Mivart 
asserts in all earnestness the spirituality and immortality 
of the soul and its immediate creation by God. This is 
understood as a matter of course, as he is one of the most 
respected Catholics in England, and was professor in 
the Catholic College at South Kensington. However, 
he believes that he has a right to hold on the origin of 
man's body opinions very different from those usually 
accepted heretofore. He thinks it possible to maintain, 
without opposing any doctrine of faith, that the body of 
man originated like that of every other animal, that is 
to say, by descent, and that God then breathed the rea- 
sonable soul into this body, which was derived from an 
animal organism. Thus, the body of Adam was similar 
to that of a man-like monkey, and we should have to 
admit that the development of this animal's body was 
guided and protected during its development with par- 
ticular care, in view of receiving in the future a reasonable 
soul. After this animal had lived through a series of 



128 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

years, and after the removal of the animal soul, God 
created in the full-grown body a reasonable soul as the 
only principle of life, and thus, says Mivart, arose the 
first man. Hence the body of man arose under the 
guidance and superintendence of Providence; but this 
development took place in harmony with nature's law. 
To prove that this is man's origin, Mivart argues that 
the human body, from the point of view of anatomy, 
is only the animal organism further developed and 
perfected. 

Man, he continues his argument, is a rational animal 
{animal rationale) . It is certainly natural and fitting that, 
if a being (animal) of the class of the mammalia should, be 
formed and endowed with reason, it should also be formed 
in accordance with the general laws of its class, and this 
not only as regards the shape of the full-grown body, 
but also in its development to its present state as re- 
gards kind and manner. Professor Mivart bases this 
supposition on its possibility, and because man is a 
being endowed with sense (animal) , he believes that this 
kind of explanation is reconcilable with the teaching of 
the Church, though he admits that some do not agree 
with his views on account of the teachings of faith. 1 The 
Augsburger Allg. Zeitung lately said that A. R. Wallace 
ascribed the great spread of Darwinism in England 
largely to the views of Professor Mivart, "who is as 
good a Catholic as he is an anatomist, accepts uncon- 
ditionally the descent of man, as regards the body, and 
who is only in doubt whether the entire intellectual and 
moral nature of man does not also come from the same 
source and through an analogous development." 2 

1 Cf. "Genesis of Species," p. 277; "Lessons from Nature," 
1876, p. 177; Dublin Review, January, 1872. 

2 Augsburger Allg. Zeitung, 1877; Beil, Nr. 17; cf . " Theol. 
Quartalschrift," Tubingen, 1877, p. 171. 



CAN MIVART'S HYPOTHESIS BE MAINTAINED? 129 

82. Can Mivart's Hypothesis be Maintained? 

According- to our plan, let us now examine the question 
of the corporal origin of man on the basis of the sources 
of faith, and particularly of the account of Holy Scrip- 
ture. There is question here of the origin of the first man. 
"But," says the Jesuit Knabenbauer, 1 "Adam, just be- 
cause he was the first man, could not enter the world like 
all men after him, who are generated and born. All will 
agree in this. Now, how did he come into the world? 
Various suppositions are imaginable and possible. God 
could, if He wished, create him according to the body 
out of nothing, just as well as He created the fundamental 
matter of all things and the human soul out of nothing. 
He could, as the human body was to be material, use 
already existing matter for its formation. He could also 
allow a man-like body to develop itself through a natural 
process, according to the hypothesis of Professor Mivart. 
The question now is, Which of these possible ways did 
God in fact employ, and have we the means to learn this 
as a matter of fact? In many cases we have two sources 
of knowledge ; on the one hand, the nature of things which 
our reason comprehends and understands, and from which 
it draws conclusions; on the other, supernatural Scrip- 
ture and tradition. These are at our command in this 
case, and we have to consult both if we wish to form a 
correct opinion on this question. 

" When we consider our question according to the first 
source, we may view man's corporal likeness to other ani- 
mals, his sensitive activity and everything that is proper 
to man as we view animals; but we must not forget, 
even when investigating from this point of view, that the 
reasonable soul, the influence of which cannot be weighed, 
because it cannot be compared, surpasses every purely 
sensible principle of life ; that therefore the reasonable 

^'Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," 1877, vol. ii., pp. 123, 125. 
9 



13° 



ORIGIN OF MAN. 



soul must find instruments in the body for activities, for 
which no analogy is possible in the domain of the purely 
sensible expressions of life. The dignity of the soul in 
itself and the peculiarity of its functions, whose instru- 
ment the body should be, raise the question whether 
the corporal descent of man from an animal body is con- 
ceivable at all, or whether it really corresponds to the 
nature of things. It seems equally proper to consider 
whether God, when He wished to make man the lord and 
master of the visible world (to speak from quite a human 
standpoint) , might not have good reason to introduce him 
into the world in a striking manner, even as regards his 
corporal part.' This and much more one might weigh 
when considering our question from a natural point of 
view in order to solve the question of man's corporal 
origin with more or less probability. But evidently we 
must refer here to our second source of information, to 
revelation, and inquire whether this enlightens us on 
the way which, as a matter of fact, God followed in creat- 
ing man's body. Absolutely speaking, could God have 
given existence to man's body in different ways? Do 
we find indicated in the Sacred Books with sufficient clear- 
ness the way He chose? If that be the case, then the ques- 
tion is settled. It appears to us that Holy Scripture 
instructs us clearly and distinctly on the origin of the 
human body," ' and indeed in such a. way as to exclude 
Mivart's hypothesis. 

83. What does Scripture Tell Us about Man's 
Bodily Origin?— What does Holy Scripture tell us 
about the origin of the first man ? God created all other 
things simply by an act of His will : Let there be. But 
He created man by an especial act. Although he ap- 
peared on the earth during the same period as some ani- 
mals, that is to say, on the sixth day, he does not receive 

1 Gen. i. 26. 



SCRIPTURE AND MAN'S BODILY ORIGIN. 131 

his existence like the rest of creatures by a simple com- 
mand, but after a solemn consultation : " Let us make man 
to our image and likeness, " says the Lord ; thus He Him- 
self with His own hands formed man of the slime of the 
earth and breathed into his face the breath of life, and 
man became a living soul. This is the short and sim- 
ple account which Revelation gives of man's creation. 
Thus, according to God's word, the first man was formed 
of the earth, and neither exegesis nor natural science 
can interpret the sacred words in any other sense. Baer, 
a naturalist and savant, says of the creation of man: 
"If we understand by 'the slime of the earth,' from 
which man was formed, the terrestrial elements which 
have received life, the natural sciences cannot go beyond 
this truth." 1 

On the hypothesis " that it is not irreconcilable with 
faith that man's body arose in the same manner as every 
other animal body, through descent," this supposition 
might be brought into agreement with the above words 
of the sacred text, if we had nothing in Holy Scripture 
to guide us except the simple indications of that line. 
For even on this supposition, considering the matter on 
the whole, we might yet do justice to the sacred text.'-' 
But we read in Holy Scripture the words : " Let the earth 
bring forth the living creatures," and " God formed out 
of the ground all the beasts of the earth,"— expressions 
which tell us that the necessary matter and the com- 
pounds (albumen, hydrate of carbon, inorganic salts, 
water) necessary for the formation of animal bodies 
were taken from matter already existing and chemical 
combinations. The mass of matter already existing, 
which here furnished the material, Holy Scripture 
simply designates by the word " earth," because this 

' Gen. ii. 7. 

2 Knabenbauer," Stimmen ausMaria-Laach," 1877, vol. ii.,p. 125. 



132 



ORIGIN OF MAN. 



material was indeed in and upon the earth and formed 
part of terrestrial bodies. Or how could the idea of forma- 
tion from pre-existing material be expressed otherwise 
in a popular manner? Nobody will look for chemical 
formulas in Holy Scripture! Now if the human body 
was really formed from the organism of a monkey, then 
it might yet be described as " formed of the earth/' Of 
course, not in itself and immediately, but in a remote way, 
in its root and first cause, so to say, — it would, although 
mediately, descend " from the earth" in the true sense. 
Thus our question comes to this: Does Holy Scripture 
exclude such a mediate formation of the first man's body 
from the earth and teach its immediate formation there- 
from? It seems to us that there cannot be any doubt 
that the former view is against all Scriptural exegesis, 
and that we have to accept the latter, that is, that the 
body of the first man was immediately formed by God 
from the slime of the earth, as Genesis tells us. 1 Accord- 
ing to some theologians, the immediate creation of the 
body of the first man is an article of faith, not indeed 
defined by the Church, but evidently taught by the Bible 
and tradition. 2 

Other passages in Holy Scripture confirm our view. 
The sentence of God pronounced on fallen man reads 
as follows: " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
eat bread, till thou return to the earth, out of which 
thou wast taken." But these words, clear in themselves, 
are followed by an explanatory clause : " For dust thou 
art, and unto dust thou shalt return." 3 This certainly 
means, Just as thou wast formed out of dust, as far as thy 
body is concerned, so also thy body shall return to dust. 
Compare also what Ecclesiasticus says: " God created 
man of the earth, and He turned him into it again," 4 and 

1 Knabenbauer," Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," 1877, vol. ii.,p. 133. 

2 Cf. " Mazella," etc. 3 Gen. iii. 19. 4 Ecclus. xvii. i, 2. 



SCRIPTURE AND MAN'S BODILY ORIGIN. 133 

what Ecclesiastes teaches : " And the dust return into its 
earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, 
who gave it. "• ' The bosom of the earth takes up the dead 
body, the spirit returns to God, who created it directly, 
as the body is derived from the earth. Is not the im- 
mediate formation of the body of the first man from the 
earth supposed throughout all these passages? 2 

To conclude this subject, we must admit that the de- 
scription which Moses gives of the creation of man shows 
at. once that man is an essentially different creature from 
any of those which he describes before man's creation. 
This essential difference and his higher nature are implied 
in the fact that God announces His resolution of creating 
man before He does so : " And God said, Let us make 
man to our image and likeness ; and let him. have do- 
minion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the 
air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creep- 
ing creature that moveth upon the earth. And God 
created man to His own image; to the image of God 
He created him; male and female He created them." 3 
"The world and its parts," says St. Gregory of Nyssa, 
" are as it were at once created by the divine power, 
inasmuch as they came into existence by the mere 
command of God: 'Let there be'; but the creation 
of man is preceded by reflection ; the Creator describes 
in words what is to exist. The divine words decide how 
man shall exist, to what end he shall be made, what he 
shall do after he has been made, what he shall govern, 
so that man partakes of his high honors even before his 
creation, and before he has come into being he has ob- 
tained the dominion of the world." 4 

The questions, wherein man's image and likeness of 

1 Eccles. xii. 7 ; cf. also Wisdom vii. 1 ; Ecclus. xxxiii. 3. 

2 Knabenbauer, op. cit., p. 134. 

3 Gen. i. 26, 27. 4 « De opif> hom » c> 



j 34 ORIGIN OF MAN. 

God consists, and how far we are to distinguish between 
the image of God and the likeness to God, have been 
differently answered by theologians. If we overlook 
the dogmatic side of the question, which does not 
concern us here, we must from the exegetical point 
of view say, firstly, that man's likeness to God certainly 
consists in the sovereign authority which has been given 
to him. St. Chrysostom observes strikingly, that " God 
does not only say: Let us make man to our image, but 
He shows in the words which immediately follow in what 
sense the word image is used. He says: Let them have 
dominion, etc. Therefore, He speaks of the image with 
reference to the dominion, and to nothing else." * But 
the dominion of man involves the possession of an im- 
mortal, reasonable, and free soul, so that the other fathers 
and theologians are also right when they name this point 
as the one in which man's likeness consists. 

After having learned what faith, positive science, and 
materialism teach about man's origin and nature, let us 
consider the proofs which pseudo-science brings forward 
for the theory of man's descent from the animals. This 
we shall do in the three following chapters. 

1 Horn. 8, in Gen. 



CHAPTER IV. 

MAN AND BEAST. 

Is man merely a perfected animal ? — Darwin's " struggle for 
life." — How does it correspond with the wisdom, order, and 
omnipotent power of God? — The assumed change of inferior 
species into superior ones, by the struggle for life, does not 
explain their origin. — It is impossible to explain the 
origin of man from an ape by the struggle for life. — How 
did the last monkey acquire the faculty of thinking, 
speaking, walking on two legs, etc. ? — No trace of a higher 
development is found in any animal species. — If species 
changed in former times, why does this not happen in his- 
torical times? — Darwin's " struggle for life" is purely 
imaginary. 

84. Consolation in Having an Anthropoid 
Monkey for Ancestor. — As we saw in trie preceding- 
chapter, the naturalists of trie materialistic school are all 
agreed in looking upon some anthropoid monkey as our 
immediate ancestor. Most of those who defend the 
theory of man's relationship to the apes think it well to 
begin or to end their argument by assuring us that there 
is nothing lowering or disgraceful to man in their theory. 
Haeckel says that it will "even have an enlighten- 
ing and ennobling effect, and. thus will lead men more and 
more towards their eternal goal through the light of 
truth to the joy of liberty." 2 "There is one thought," 
says another apostle of this doctrine," "which reconciles 
us to the conclusions of science so startling to human 

1 " Entstehung," pp. 35, 36. 

2 Schaafhausen, in the " Archiv fur Anthropologic, " vol. ii., p. 
336, 

135 



136 MAN AND BEAST. 

feeling; man is not descended from the ape. This form 
is the last he broke through, the last veil he threw off, 
the envelope beneath which the finer form developed, 
as a butterfly from its chrysalis, which came from the 
caterpillar, as did the caterpillar from the egg. Thus 
everything in nature becomes a parable, because one law 
governs the whole. Natural science places man just as 
high as do the philosopher and the poet ; but natural sci- 
ence alone can trace the way by which he has attained to 
this height. When we see a man who was born in a poor 
cottage, and has attained to power and happiness through 
his own efforts, at the height of his fame, do we not admire 
him much more than the man who boasts of his inherited 
riches? So it is with our race. For this reason we are 
not ashamed to look back into the past; it is our surest 
proof of a better future. We have ideals beyond, our 
own nature, but we try to reach them, and we can in 
reality approach them. Is not the golden age which 
our poets sing of as a lost good, as a past splendor, and 
also as an undeserved happiness, — is not that golden age 
more beautiful if it lies before instead of behind us, if 
we must gain what we have never possessed?" 

No Christian will be able to be quieted by such ed- 
ifying thoughts, and if it were as true as it is false 
that man's descent from the beast is " a scientific con- 
clusion," with this would vanish, as Frohschammer ! 
and others have well said, not only the poets' descrip- 
tions of the golden age, but also the Christian doctrines 
of the creation and the original state of man. Christian 
anthropologists, therefore, have every reason not to " be- 
come enthusiastic over the results of natural science," 
but to try to prove scientifically that the theory of the 
genealogical connection between man and beast is not a 
"scientific conclusion." Therefore, let us now consider 

1 " Das Christenthum," p. 126. 



CRITICISM OF THE PITHECOID THEORY. 137 

the proofs for the doctrine of man's descent from the 
animals. 

85. Proofs in Support of Man's Descent from 
an Ape.— Millions of years ago, we are told, there 
existed only elementary substances, "atoms;" from 
these the monera were developed. Through continual 
transformation nobler organisms arose. Then came 
the "struggle for life;" inferior beings had to perish, 
only the fittest survived, and from the latter man finally 
went forth. The orang-outang, chimpanzee, or gorilla 
are generally looked upon as the last stage of transforma- 
tion before the appearance of man, as he exists. 

One of these anthropoid apes, it is asserted, gave up the 
habit of creeping on all fours, of climbing trees, and thus 
it gradually accustomed itself to walk on its hind legs. 
In this way it gradually took the shape of man. Its tail 
grew shorter owing to disuse, and finally was lost alto- 
gether ; it gave up the habit of eating fruit, and its feat- 
ures took quite a different form; the snout became 
smaller and the countenance perpendicular. In the 
course of its further development, the grin of the 
monkey turned into man's pleasant smile, and from 
his monotonous cries articulate language arose. After- 
wards man began to think, his brain became larger, and 
fathers begot children endowed with yet larger brains. 
It was thus that man gradually rose to his present per- 
fection, in order perhaps to transform himself again after 
some millions of years by further development. This, 
in substance, is the theory of Darwin with regard to 
man's position and his origin. 

86. Criticism of the Pithecoid Theory.— Now in 
the name of common sense and positive science, in the 
name of our Christian faith and human dignity, we pro- 
test against so debasing and pernicious a doctrine; 
and we do so on the following grounds: (1) Dar- 



138 MAN AND BEAST. 

win's theory of man's descent is ridiculously absurd and 
impossible. This we intend to prove in the present 
chapter. (2) There is a vast difference between man 
and an animal— monkey— both in body and soul. This 
will form the subject of our next chapter; after that 
we shall weigh the objections of the Darwinists against 
the Christian doctrine of man's origin and nature. 

A man's origin based on the theory of anything except 
revelation is pure imagination, a delusion and a snare. 
Now, when this hypothesis is based on such a silly and 
delusive foundation as that just before set forth, it must 
be considered by every sensible person as the sheerest 

nonsense. 

87. Darwin's View of Man's Descent is Absurd 
and Impossible.— (1) We said the Darwinian view 
of our origin is absurd and impossible. Let us make 
this clear. When we reject God as the Creator of man 
and accept man as the result of a natural process, we 
must repeat the question : Whence comes the " moneron " 
from which all forms of life up to man are derived? 
Does it exist from all eternity, or did it arise by chance ? 
The first cannot be true, for what is eternal does not 
admit development into higher forms. That something 
should arise by chance, and that higher forms of existence 
should again develop by chance from this something, 
only an idiot can believe. Every sensible man knows 
that nothing arises by haphazard, much less a settled 
order of organic beings. The adherents of this doctrine 
must either be atheists or they must at least admit that 
the primitive forms of life from which the more perfect 
ones were developed came from the hand of God. But 
if we accept a God, then we believe it is more rational, 
more just, and more in harmony with the wisdom of the 
Almighty, to create the species of plants and animals by 
separate acts rather than by the " struggle for existence." 



DARWIN'S VIEW OF MAN'S DESCENT. 1 39 

What is this struggle for life ? In brief, it is a war of 
all against all ; the killing and annihilation of the weaker 
by the stronger. This incessant struggle is always going 
on until only the stronger and more perfect forms re- 
main. 1 This results from natural selection. Nature 
calls forth and pushes the power of variation by the 
fearful struggle for existence, that widespread and 
remorseless conflict, under the steady pressure of which 
-each living form is forced to develop to the utmost to 
retain and augment every advantage — a conflict that 
issues in the "survival of the fittest." 

How does this constant struggle, this remorseless 
conflict of all forms of life for existence harmonize with 
the wisdom, the order, and the omnipotent power of God ? 
Does it appear reasonable to make this struggle for life 
the principle of His creation, and to ordain beforehand 
the killing and annihilation of the weaker beings as the 
occasion and source of its various species? It is a mys- 
tery to us how the perfect forms and organizations of the 
surviving species cause variation, when experience goes 
to prove that the weak and deformed are more likely to 
transmit peculiarities and abnormities than the strong 
and well-made. 

We have quite a different conception of God and His 
creative powet. Since our reason forces us to adore Him 
as the Creator of heaven and earth, we prefer to believe 
that He has made His creatures, be they many or be 
they few, according to their different kinds and species, 
by His almighty will, rather than admit that they arose 
by an endless conflict. The disposition on the part of 
many Darwinists, not only to insist en natural selection, 
under the conditions imposed by the fearful and pro- 
tracted struggle for existence, as indicating the method 
by which the creative intelligence produced the multitud- 

1 Darwin, " Origin of Species." 



140 MAN AND BEAST. 

inous forms of present life, but also to deny creative 
intelligence altogether, or to base it on natural selection, 
acting in a blind and unconscious way, confirms us in 

this view. 

88. "The Struggle for Life" does not Ex- 
plain the Origin of Species. — (2) But let us go fur- 
ther. The supposed change of lower species into 
higher ones by the struggle for life does not explain 
their origin. Haeckel posits one progenitor — the mon- 
eron; Darwin eight or ten, from which the three hun- 
dred and seventy thousand species of plants and ani- 
mals have sprung. Now the question arises: Who 
created the one or the ten primordial forms? Did 
the moneron or the other primordial forms fight and 
struggle for existence? Did the moneron struggle 
single-handed? Who gave these primitive forms of 
life the natural instinct of unceasing warfare, that they 
might beget and perpetuate a higher and a more varied 

form? 

Let us imagine a great number of creatures of lower 
forms purposely wrestling and struggling against one 
another for existence ; what would be the result ? The 
consequence of such perpetual conflict would be to 
strengthen and develop the organs for combat, but not 
their noble qualities nor their intelligence. When ani- 
mals of the same genus fight among themselves for mas- 
tery, their jaws, teeth, claws, nails, muscle, activity, 
courage, endurance, or other natural means of defence, 
may increase and develop. But are they by this conflict 
changed into another genus, and do they assume their 
defensive and aggressive organs, as well as their type, 
organization, and habit ? It would be nonsense to believe 
that the more beautiful and perfect species of animals, 
and, above all, that man, is the result of such a struggle. 
On the contrary, war renders the combatants more sav- 



HOW DID THE LAST MONKEY BECOME A MAN? I4T 

age ; it never civilizes nor develops the finer and more 
exalted qualities. 

89. Absurdity of Explaining Man's Descent by 
"the Struggle for Life."— (3) It is absurd to explain 
the origin of man from the monkey by " the struggle for 
life." In this struggle it is supposed that the most 
intelligent monkey abandoned the habit of creeping on 
all fours, of climbing trees, and using its tail. In this 
struggle it is supposed to have lost its hair and become 
more handsome. We should believe that the contrary 
took place. The struggle for life might have changed 
men into very formidable monkeys, but not monkeys into 
men. The monkey's physique is better adapted for this 
struggle against the elements and other hostile in- 
fluences than man's delicate body. In the struggle for 
life the monkey, with its four arms, which enable it 
to move at pleasure on the earth and amidst the 
branches of trees, with its hairy skin and its tail, 
which helps its legs, is certainly better fitted for this 
struggle for existence than man. ' We cannot under- 
stand how the struggle for life could transform an ape's 
body into a human body. Hence, if the struggle for 
life is the law of life, we ought again to become monkeys. 

90. How Did the Last Monkey Become a Man? 

(4) We next ask : How did the monkey which became 
the first man begin to think, reason, talk, walk, smile, 
laugh, blush, and sing? How did its skull increase 
by at least eleven cubic inches in cranial capacity? And 
its hand? The difference may seem small when placed 
alongside of man's on the dissecting table, but in that 
difference, whatever it be, lies the whole difference 
between an organ limited to the climbing of trees or the 
plucking of fruit and an organ which is so correlated 
with man's inventive genius that by its aid the earth is 
weighed and the distance of the sun is measured. In 



142 



MAN AND BEAST. 



reply to the first question, Vogt answers: "This hap- 
pened through the increase of the brain." When we 
ask: How did the brain increase so largely and so 
rapidly? he again answers: "Through its activity in 

thinking." 

It is evident to every sensible and rational man that 
Vogt's answer will not stand the test of experience and 
practical observation. For we must infer from what 
he says of the increased brain capacity of the monkey 
as it changes from brute to man, that the brain aug- 
ments in proportion to the faculty of thinking. If it 
were so, then the heads of the men of enlightenment 
now living — men whose brains have been developed by 
the thinking process of thousands of years, would be so 
big and heavy that they could hardly carry their skulls 
erect upon their shoulders. But both paleontology and 
archaeology prove that the primitive men of Europe and 
Egypt, for instance, had skulls of the same size as we 
have to-day. Therefore it is false to assert that the 
irrational is capable of producing the rational spirit of 
man ; the higher will not develop itself from the lower, 
because no being can bequeath more than it possesses 

itself. 

91. No Trace Found of Development in Any 

Species. (5) All the observations of the past, as we 

proved at length in our chapter on Darwinism, fail to 
find the least trace of development in any animal 
species. Birds build their nests, beavers their dams and 
dwellings, bees make their cells, as their ancestors did 
long ago; dogs are no more docile, nor foxes more cun- 
ning than of old. Though the unceasing, struggle for 
existence goes on, still we do not notice any progress 
nor the changing of one species into another. The 
different species and varieties of monkeys are still 
monkeys; none walk erect, speak, laugh, sing, or make 



WHY ARE MONKEYS NO LONGER TRANSFORMED? 1 43 

tools and implements. The most " developed " among 
them would sit by a fire and see it go out without having 
enough of reason to feed it, though the fuel be before 
its eyes. What we observe in the animal kingdom we 
find also in the vegetable. Not the least development 
is visible. Certain species may have grown larger or 
smaller, more symmetrical in type and more uniform in 
their organs, but they still belong to their respective 
species and races. 

If there be question of mere theory, if we reason on pure 
possibilities and not on facts, it is certain (always except- 
ing the spontaneous generation of the first being, which is 
an impossibility) that God could have created the world 
according to the transformists' system — that is to say, 
He could create only one being, capable of developing 
itself gradually, and of producing the different organ- 
isms of all actually existing beings. But this is not the 
question ; we are not inquiring what could have been, 
but what are the facts. Now the facts contradict the 
doctrine of Darwin and Haeckel ;' they afford no direct 
proof of the transformation of the species ; they show 
that there exists many a break between species and 
species. Still the passage from one to the other should 
be by insensible and imperceptible degrees. Such a 
transition has not been proved. Darwin and Haeckel 
affirm as real that which is only possible, although 
a posse ad actum non valet consecutio. 

92. Why are Monkeys no Longer Trans- 
formed?— (6) Finally, we ask: If in prehistoric times 
animals have been changed into men, why did this 
not take place during historical times, seeing that the 
same struggle for existence is still going on? What 
has happened once, can be repeated, unless some 
sufficient cause intervenes. No naturalist has yet dis- 
covered a monkey on the point of assuming the form, 



144 



MAN AND BEAST. 



features, functions, and intelligence of man, nor has any 
one dug up a fossil that showed this transforming pro- 
cess, so that even Vogt despairingly admits that there 
is no hope of ever discovering the "missing link" which 
connects man with the monkey. 

93. Criticism of Darwinism by Virchow and Daw- 
son. Virchow, a rationalistic naturalist, says: 'When 

we study the quaternary fossil man, who certainly should 
resemble our original ancestors more than we do, . . . 
we always find a man like ourselves. It is a little over 
ten years ago that skulls were found on the turf, in the 
lacustrine deposits, or in the ancient caves. Scientists 
thought they saw in them singular characters pointing 
towards a savage state, incompletely developed. They 
were on the point of pronouncing them very like apes' 
skulls. But all such notions are vanishing. The ancient 
troglodytes, the cave-dwellers, the men of the turf, 
prove to be quite a respectable society. They have 
heads of such proportions that many individuals now liv- 
ing would think themselves happy if they had heads as 
large. In short, we must acknowledge that no fossil types 
present marked chaiacteristics of inferior development. 
And when we compare the whole of the fossil remains 
known until now with the present state of things, we 
may boldly say that among the men now living there 
exists a much greater number of individuals relatively 
inferior, than among the fossils in question. ... No 
skull of a monkey or of a man-monkey has been found 
that had really belonged to a man." ' 

Despairing of their cause, the adherents of the monkey 
theory pretend that somewhere in Asia or Africa, they 
cannot exactly tell where, now submerged under the sea, 
the monkey ancestors of man would be found, if one 

1 Virchow, " Discours au Congres des Anthropologistes- de 
Munich," September, 1877. 



CRITICISM OF DARWIN. 



H5 



could dig up its depths. When men are obliged to have 
recourse to such arguments to bolster up their theories, 
we have reason to believe that they defend a weak and 
bad cause. 

In conclusion, listen to what J. W. Dawson, an Amer- 
ican author, has to say on this subject: 

" If we gather the bones of man and his implements 
from the ancient gravel-beds and cave-earths, we do not 
find them associated with any creature in these rich 
tertiary beds, which have yielded so great a harvest of 
mammalian bones. In the modern world we find nothing 
nearer to him than such anthropoid apes as the gorilla 
and orangs. But the apes, however nearly allied, can- 
not be the ancestors of man. If at all allied to him by 
descent, they are his brethren and cousins, not his 
parents, for they must, on the evolutionist hypothesis, 
be themselves the terminal ends of distinctive lines of 
derivation from previous forms. 

" This difficulty is not removed by an appeal to the 
imperfection of the geological record. So many animals 
contemporary with man are known, both at the begin- 
ning of his geological history and in the present world, 
that it would be more than marvellous if no very near 
relative had ere this time been discovered at one extreme 
or the other, or at some portion of the intervening ages. 
Further, all the animals contemporary with man in the 
post glacial period, so far as is known, are in the same 
case. Discoveries of this kind may, however, still be 
made, and we may give the evolutionist the benefit 
of the possibility. We may affirm, however, that in 
order to gain a substratum of fact for his doctrine, he 
must find somewhere in the later tertiary period ani- 
mals much nearer to man than are the present anthro- 
poid apes. 

"This demand I make advisedly; first, because the 



I4 6 MAN AND BEAST. 

animals in question must precede man in geological 
time, and, secondly, because the apes, even if they pre- 
ceded man, instead of being contemporary with him, 
are not near enough to fulfil the required conditions. 
What is the actual fact with regard to these animals, so 
confidently affirmed to resemble some not very remote 
ancestors of ours? Zoologically they are not varieties 
of the same species with man ; they are not species of 
the same genus, nor do they belong to the genera of the 
same family, or even to the families of the same order. 
These animals are, at least, ordinarily distinct from us 
in those grades of groups in which naturalists arrange 
animals. I am well aware that an attempt has been 
made to group man, apes, lemurs in one order of 'pri- 
mates,' and thus reduce their difference to the grade of 
the family ; but, as put by its latest and perhaps most 
able advocates, the attempt is a decided failure. One 
has only to read the concluding chapter of Huxley's 
new book on the anatomy of the vertebrates to be per- 
suaded of this, more especially if we can take into con- 
sideration, in addition to the many differences indicated, 
others which exist, but are not mentioned by the author. 
Ordinal distinctions among the animals are mainly de- 
pendent on grade or rank, and are not to be broken 
down by obscure resemblances of internal anatomy, 
having no relation to this point, but to physiological feat- 
ures of very secondary importance. Man must on all 
grounds rank much higher above the apes than they can 
do above any other order of mammals. Even if we re- 
fuse to recognize all higher grounds of classification, and 
condescend, with some great zoologists of our time, to 
regard nature with the eyes of mere anatomists, or m 
the same way that a bricklayer's apprentice may be 
supposed to regard the distinction of architectural styles, 



CRITICISM OF DARWIN. 147 

we arrive at no other conclusions. Let us imagine an 
anatomist, himself neither a man nor a monkey, but 
a being of some other grade, and altogether ignorant of 
the higher ends and powers of our species, studying 
the skeleton of a man and that of an ape; he must 
infer that they belong to different orders on account of 
the correlations and modifications of structure implied 
in the erect position. It would be sufficient for the pur- 
pose to consider the balancing of the skull on the neck, 
or the structure of the foot, and the consequences fairly 
deducible from either of these features. Nay, were 
this imaginary anatomist a derivationist, and ignorant 
of the geological date of his specimens, and as careless 
of the differences in respect to brain as some of his 
human confreres, he might, referring to the less special- 
ized condition of man's teeth and foot, conclude not 
that man is an improved ape, but that the ape is a 
specialized and improved man. He would be obliged, 
however, even on this hypothesis, to admit that there 
must be a host of missing links ; nor would these be 
supplied by the study of the living races of men, be- 
cause these want even specific distinctions, and differ 
from the apes essentially in those points on which an 
ordinal distinction can be fairly based. 

' I do not attach any importance whatever in this con- 
nection to the likeness in type or plan between man and 
other mammals. Evolutionists are in the habit of tak- 
ing for granted that this implies derivation, and of reas- 
oning as if the fact that the human skeleton is con- 
structed on the same principles as that of an ape or a dog 
must have some connection with a common ancestry of 
these animals. This is begging the question, however; 
creation as well as evolution admits of a similarity of 
plan. . . . But while a man is related in his structure 



I4 8 MAN AND BEAST. 

to the higher animals, his contemporaries, it is un- 
deniable that there are certain points in which 
he constitutes a new type; and if this consideration 
were properly weighed, I believe it would induce 
zoologists, notwithstanding the proverbial humility 
of the true man of science, to consider themselves 
much more widely separated from the brutes than even 
by the ordinal distinction above referred to. I would 
state this view of the matter thus: It is a law in the 
lower animals that the bodily frame is provided with all 
necessary means of defence and attack, and with all 
necessary protection against external influence and 
assailants. In a very few cases we have exceptions to 
this. A hermit crab, for instance, has the hinder part 
of its body unprotected, and has, instead of armor, the 
instinct of using the cast-off shells of mollusks ; yet even 
this animal has the usual strong claws of a crustacean 
for defence in front. There are only a very few animals 
in which instinct takes the place of physical con- 
trivances for defence or attack, and in these we find 
merely the usual unvarying instincts of the irrational 
animal. But what is the rare exception in all 
other animals becomes in man the rule. He has no 
means of escape from danger compared with those 
enjoyed by other animals; no defensive armor, no 
natural protection from cold or heat, no effective weap- 
ons for attacking other animals. These disabilities 
would make him the most helpless of creatures, especially 
when taken in connection with his slow growth and long 
immaturity. His safety and dominion over other ani- 
mals are secured by entirely new means, constituting a 
' new departure ' in creation ; contrivance and inventive 
power, enabling him to utilize the objects and forces of 
nature, replace in him the material powers bestowed on 
lower animals. Obviously the structure of the human 



CRITICISM OF DARWIN. 



149 



being is related to this, and so related as to place man 
in a different category from any other animal." * 

From what has been said it is plain that the so-called 
" struggle for life " is a figment of the imagination. It 
is impossible to explain by its means either the existence 
of organic beings, or their development into man. How- 
ever, in order to solve the question more completely, we 
shall now examine the special differences which exist 
between man and animals. 

1 J. W. Dawson, "The Story of the Earth and Man," New 
York, 1887, pp. 360-365. 



/ ,1 









\ % v. 



CHAPTER V. 

MAN AND BEAST,— Continued. 

The structure of man and that of the ape.— Two kinds of distinc- 
tive characters. — Physical characters. — The head. — The 
brain. —The foot and the hand. —Bodily development. — Rudi- 
" mentary formations. — Embryological development.— Uni- 
versality.— Senses. —Psychological characters. — Reason. — 
Liberty. — Language.— Results of language.— Genius.— The 
Tasmanians. — Sense of shame. — Conclusion. 

When the Church, teaches that man is a reasonable 
being, composed of a body and a soul made to the image 
of God, and therefore free, responsible, and immortal, 
science does not oppose this teaching ; on the contrary, 
she supports it when, in her turn, she states that man 
appeared upon the earth after all other creatures, and 
that he is the most perfect of organic beings. But 
when there is question of determining exactly the 
measure of man's superiority, materialistic science holds 
views in bitter conflict with the teaching of theology. 
Until at present, it was generally admitted that man 
alone is free and responsible, that he occupies a place 
apart in nature, and that an impassable gulf separates 
him from the animal placed next in the zoological series. 
Man's nature, said Buff on, is "so superior to that of 
beasts that one must be blind to confound him with the 

latter." 

However, the anthropologists of the materialistic school 
have changed, all this, and for them there exists be- 
tween man and the beast only a difference of degree. 
For them, man Is primus inter pares, constituting always, 



150 



CATARRHIXE MONKEYS OUR IMMEDIATE ANCESTORS. I 5 I 

it is true, a separate genus, but at bottom he is less 
distant from the anthropoid monkeys — the gorilla, for 
instance — than the gorilla is from the inferior apes. 

94. The Catarrhixe Monkeys Our Immediate 
Ancestors. — All transformists are agreed that we must 
look upon the catarrhine monkeys (in contra-distinction 
to the platyrhine) as our great-grandfathers. The 
reason for the distinction of these two species lies in the 
formation of the nose. In the platyrhine, the Ameri- 
can monkeys, the nose is pressed flat and the nostrils di- 
lated and extended outwardly. The monkeys of the 
ancient world, on the other hand, have a septum in the 
nose, and the nostrils point downward. Again, the 
number of teeth in the small-nosed species corresponds 
to that of man, whilst, on the contrary, the flat-nosed 
species has four molar teeth more. 

It is Haeckel again who tells us all this when he says : 
' This perfect harmony of all small- nosed men in regard 
to the characteristic formation of the nose and the set of 
teeth, proves distinctly that they' have a common ori- 
gin and have developed from one common root." 
A few lines further on he confesses " that the establish- 
ment of the human genealogical tree at present pre- 
sents great difficulties, and we can only assert that 
it must have been tailless catarrhini, so-called, monkey- 
men, or anthropoids, which probably in the pliocene or 
miocene period, perhaps only at the beginning of the 
diluvian period, developed through natural selection 
into the ancestors of mankind." J 

But it was Darwin who made every effort to bridge 
the gulf between man and animals and to account 
for the difference between them, and he concludes that 
man is a perfected animal. The manner in which he 

1 " NaturlicheSchopfungsgeschichte/'p. 574; " Anthropogenie," 
p. 487- 



152 MAN AND BEAST. 

accounts for this gradual development is so peculiar 
that in contradistinction to all his rivals we may aptly 
style him the "man-breeder' of the nineteenth cen- 
tury. 

" What will lead me to my goal ?" he asks himself, and 
when he has recognized the means, he skilfully and 
carefully uses every point in steering around every abyss, 
cliff, and promontory, so as to reach it. Naturally he 
looked first for similarity in bodily structure, and like all 
man-monkey theorists, he dwelt especially on similarity 
of anatomical structure. 

Let us ascertain whether the resemblance between the 
structure of man and that of the highest class of monkeys 
now existing is sufficiently great to make it necessary 
to assume scientifically that both are descended from the 
same common stock of ancestors. 

95. The Characters Distinguishing Man from the 
Animal. — The characters which distinguish man from 
the animal have been divided into two groups : physical 
characters, determined by physiology and comparative 
anatomy, and psychological characters, that is, intellectual 
and moral ones. The first have been minutely and 
learnedly studied and described; they have inspired 
many beautiful pages, where science, philosophy, and 
poetry vie in showing in the organization of man's body 
an incontestable superiority. As we cannot enter into 
detail on all these characters, we must content ourselves 
with considering the principal ones. 

96. Physical Characters. — In the first place, let us 
consider man's principal physical characters. Even the 
corporal difference between man and the most highly or- 
ganized animal is an immense one. Take a monkey, 
which is looked upon as the nearest to man in appearance, 
and place it alongside of man. How proudly and erect- 
ly does man carry his head! He shows by his car- 



PHYSICAL CHARACTERS. I 53 

riage 1 that this is his natural position, and that even in his 
body he is the king of creation and no animal. Every- 
thing in him bespeaks dignity and nobility. His skeleton 
proves that he never walked on "all fours;" his head, 
hands, and feet do not fit the quadrumana. How beast- 
like stands the highest animal alongside of man ! How 
great is the difference in the monkey, with its tail, and 
its hairy body, which never exceeds three to four feet in 
height; which indeed makes efforts to raise itself on 
two legs, but always falls back to its normal position on 
"all fours." 

His vertical attitude is a character proper to man, 
although Linnaeus and BurTon doubted this. Indeed, in 
their day it was believed, that certain anthropomorphous 
apes walked erect like man. It is true that this is the 
case with domesticated orang-outangs, the only ones 
known then ; but since these animals have been studied 
in the forests where they live, it has been found that 
this is not their normal posture. In reality their posi- 
tion, in consequence of the excessive length of the an- 
terior arms, is neither a horizontal nor a vertical one ; it 
is oblique. The anthropoid monkeys, whether orangs, 
gorillas, chimpanzees, or gibbons, are built to climb 
and not to walk. This is so true that even in the 
domesticated state they need, a stick to hold themselves 
erect. On the contrary, man is built for the vertical 
posture. The manner the head is articulated at the 
vertebral column and the form of the foot are evident 

' According to Quinet, the vertical position of man is explained 
quite naturally. " Man must have arisen on a table-land, where 
he perceived above himself a mountainous country, which con- 
strained him to raise his head until he saw the firmament. . . 
While scaling steep rocks he naturally held himself erect, and 
it was thus that he disengaged himself from the habits of the 
quadrumana." — " La Creation." 



154 MAN AND BEAST. 

proofs of this. But let us inquire more minutely about 
these physical characters. 

97. (1) The Head. — Even Huxley admits that the 
differences between a gorilla's skull and a man's 
are truly immense. Man's skull in the frontal region 
presents an elevated and round contour, very different 
from what we find in the ape generally, and notably in 
the higher families of apes. It is in the American forms 
of monkeys — especially in the callithrix and pithecia — 
that we find the greatest resemblance to man in this re- 
spect. In the gorilla great bony crests (for muscular 
attachment) — like those in the carnivorous animals — 
attain their maximum of development. 

The relation of the face to the brain envelope is shown 
by what is called the cranio-facial angle. This angle is 
estimated by comparing the direction of a line drawn par- 
allel to the base of the skull with that of another line 
drawn from the front end of that base to the middle of 
the lower margin of the upper jaw. Stress has been laid 
on the difference existing between man and the gorilla 
as regards this angle. But it does not appear to be a 
really important character in forms admitted by all to be 
closely related, such as the two baboons, the mandrill, 
and the chacma. 

There is one cranial character, however, in which 
the gorilla approaches man more nearly than does any 
other primate. This is the existence of a certain ridge 
(termed vaginal) on the under surface of the bone which 
encloses the internal ear. Another process of the same 
bone (called styloid) is, however, sometimes developed 
more like the same bone in man in one of the baboons 
than in any other primate ; while of the latisternal apes 
it is not the gorilla, but the orang which in this matter 
is the most man-like. 

The gibbons resemble man more than the orang, chim- 



THE BRAIN. I 55 

panzee, or gorilla, in the preponderance of their skull 
over the bones of the face. But the smaller American 
monkeys surpass the gibbons in this respect, while the 
squirrel monkey exceeds even man himself. 

A striking feature in the human skull is the prominence 
of the inferior margin of the lower jaw in front, i.e., the 
presence of a "chin." This feature is quite wanting in 
the gorilla, in the orang, and the chimpanzee ; a more or 
less developed "chin," however, exists in the siamang, 
although no other species of gibbons, and indeed no other 
ape or lemuroid, shows a similar structure. 

Another marked character of man's skull is the pro- 
jection and the transverse convexity of the bones of the 
nose. This convexity is quite absent in the chimpanzee 
and in most gibbons. In the orang these bones are ex- 
ceedingly small and flat, often even uniting into one bone, 
or with the adjoining jaw-bones, if indeed they are not 
altogether absent. 

In the gorilla, on the other hand, they are slightly con- 
vex transversely at their upper" part, so that here we 
seem to have evidence of the predominant affinity of the 
gorilla to man. Further examination, however, shows 
that the character can have no such meaning, since a 
still more decided convexity is found to exist in some 
semnopitheci, and even in the lower baboons. Moreover, 
in the baboons the nasal bones become convex only 
towards maturity, being at first flat. This character, 
therefore, can hardly have been at one time a general 
one, now preserved only in a few scattered forms. 1 

98. (2) The Brain.— Man's brain no doubt is not abso- 
lutely the largest, for the brains of the elephant, the 
whale, and narwhal are far larger. But, as Huxley says, 
it must not be overlooked that there is a very striking- 
difference in absolute mass and weight between the low- 

1 Huxley, " Evidences," p. 102. 



156 MAN AND BEAST. 

est human brain and that of the highest ape— a difference 
which is all the more remarkable, when we recollect that 
the full-grown gorilla is pretty nearly twice as heavy as 
a Bushman or as many European women. It may be 
doubted whether a healthy human brain ever weighed 
less than 31 or 32 ounces, or whether the heaviest gorilla 
brain has exceeded 20 ounces. The rule that man's 
brain is the largest in proportion to the weight of his 
body is not, however, without exception, for some of the 
smaller birds probably possess a brain which is relatively 
larger. 1 But still there is no doubt that the human 
brain differs very remarkably from the animal brain — a 
conclusion which has been arrived at by many anato- 
mists, however widely they may differ as to details. 

According to the account given by Quatref ages 2 on 
the progress of anthropology in France, the eminent 
physiologist Gratiolet speaks in the same way of micro- 
cephalism as the German savants. According to this 
account the doctrine of man's relationship to the ape 
finds much less support among French anthropologists 
than it does in Germany. 

Anthropologists who are disagreed on many other 
points are at one on this point, and have arrived at 
the same conclusion, namely, that nothing warrants the 
assertion that the brain of the ape is a human brain ar- 
rested in its development, and that man's brain is a 
better developed ape's brain (Gratiolet) ; that an exami- 
nation of the organism in general, and of the extremi- 
ties in particular, shows us that combined with a 
common plan there exist differences of form and struct- 
ure which are incompatible with the idea of a common 
descent for man and the ape (Gratiolet); that apes 

1 Tiedemann, " Das Him des Negers," p. 14. 

2 " Correspondenzblatt fur Anthropologic," Sept. 9, 1877, pp. 

131. 135. 



THE BRAIN. I 57 

do not approach man by being perfected, and the human 
type does not approach the ape by degradation (Bert) ; 
that there exists no possible bridge between man and 
the ape, unless we turn the laws of development upside 
down (Pruner-Bey). 

At the session of the Society of Anthropology, Novem- 
ber 1 8, 1869, 1 Pruner-Bey declared: 

1 The differences are striking. The ape is covered 
with hair, which man lacks ; an anatomical character 
whose functional results are immense, as man is forced 
to supply by his industry what nature has refused him. 2 
The ape has canines which serve him as weapons; 
man is deprived of these, and has to supply the 
defect by inventing improved arms. Whilst every- 
thing in the structure of the bones of the monkey is so 
disposed as to make a quadruped and a climber of him, 
in man, on the contrary, everything reveals a biped and 
a walker. The muscular system in man and monkey 
offers contrasts, and Gratiolet has demonstrated that, 
as regards the circulation, man compared with the 
monkey is an arterial being. In some apes — the gorilla 
and the chimpanzee, for instance — the viscera reveal 
every characteristic of a herbivorous animal. The study 
of the skulls also is conclusive. All the apes have 
similar faces, and all equally unlike man's; in contrast 
to man's skull the skull of the hairless ape is so built as 
to reduce its cavity to a minimum. In the monkey 
everything is constructed so as to enlarge his face. The 
skull is a simple appendix of the face. Its contents are 

1 " Bulletin de la Societe d' Anthropologic," vol. iv., ser. ii. 

2 Pliny said: "While nature has placed the animals upon 
earth provided with everything necessary to them, that is to 
say, clothed, armed, and guided by a sure instinct, like a step- 
mother, rather than a mother, she has placed man nudus in nuda 
humo." 



158 MAN AND BEAST. 

in proportion to the cover. Whilst in man the outer ear 
rises above the occiput, the inverted order is found in 
the ape. The dental system of the ape reveals a her- 
bivorous array for his defence. Man has no intermaxil- 
lary bones; they are found in the quadrumana." 

With regard to the development of the brain, Th. 
BischofI gives us the following as the result of his 
observations : 

"The brains of man, of the orang, the chimpanzee, 
and the gorilla are nearly related, in spite of the great 
differences between them. But if we compare the 
human brain with that of an orang, the brain of the 
latter with that of a chimpanzee, and so on through the 
hylobates, semnopithecus, etc., we shall nowhere find a 
larger, or nearly so large a gulf, in the brain develop- 
ment of two of the series, as we find between the brain 
of man and that of the orang or chimpanzee. The gulf 
which separates the convolutions of a man's brain from 
the convolutions in the brain of an orang or chimpanzee 
cannot be bridged over by pointing to the gulf which 
separates the orang or chimpanzee from the lemur. 
The latter is filled up by the different intermediate kinds 
of apes ; the forms to fill up the former must still be 

found." 1 

99. (3) Foot and Hand. — The apes and half apes agree 
together, and differ from man in having the great toe, or 
the hallux, as it is called in anatomy, so constructed that 
it can be opposed to the other toes (much as our thumb 
can be opposed to the fingers) , instead of being parallel 
with the other toes and exclusively adapted to support 
the body on the ground. The prehensile character 
of the hallux is fully maintained even in the monkeys 
which, like the baboons, are terrestrial rather than 
arboreal in their habits, and which are quite quadruped 
1 Th. Bischoff, " Die Grosshirnwendungen," p. 102. 



FOOT AND HAND. I 59 

in their mode of progression. It was this circumstance 
that led Cuvier to give to the separate order in which he 
places man alone the name bimana, while to the order of 
apes and lemurs he gave the name of quadrumana. 1 If, 
with Professor Owen, we define the word " foot " as an ex- 
tremity in which the hallux forms the fulcrum in stand- 
ing or walking, then man alone has a pair of feet. But 
anatomically the foot of the ape agrees rather with man's 
foot than with his hand, and similarly the ape's hand 
resembles man's hand, and differs from his foot. Even 
judged physiologically, or according to use, the hand 
throughout the whole order of quadrumana remains the 
prehensile organ par excellence, while the predominant 
function of the foot, however prehensile it be, is con- 
stantly locomotive. Therefore the term quadrumana is 
apt to be misleading, since, anatomically as well as 
physiologically, both apes and man have two hands and 
a pair of feet. The thumb (in anatomy the pollux) 
shows no similar uniformity and condition. In the 
most man-like apes it is relatively much smaller than in 
man, and the lemurs are more man-like than the apes 
in the development of this member. 2 

A. Ecker, the anatomist, says: "I have shown that 
the special characteristics of the hand are the opposable 
thumbs, the long, prehensile fingers for grasping, and 
the general mobility of the whole ; while those of the 
foot are the arched shape, the short and unprehensile 
toes, and the impossibility of stretching the bone of the 
great toe far from the others. The reader will therefore 
see clearly that the foot in no way resembles the hinder 
extremity of the ape ; but the latter is much more like a 
hand, and therefore should be called a hind hand. It 
is only in man that the foot is exclusively a means of 

1 Cf. "Philosophical Transactions," 1867, p. 362. 

2 Mivart, " Man and Apes," pp. 87-89. 



l60 MAN AND BEAST. 

support, and the hand exclusively a prehensile organ. 
Man alone has hands and feet." J 

ioo. (4) Bodily Development. — In addition to the 
above anatomical differences there is a still greater differ- 
ence with respect to bodily development. 

" Apes have generally a short life and a rapid develop- 
ment ; they are born in a condition of bodily and mental 
maturity, which occurs in animals, but never in man. 
Their further development takes place in a few years, 
and an early death brings their life to a close. Although 
we are not fully informed as to the absolute duration of 
life among the anthropoid apes, it is questionable whether 
any of them attains to the age at which the growth of 
man ceases ; at any rate it is certain that even the highest 
apes have reached their full development when man 
is still in early youth. They arrive at sexual maturity 
at an age when man has not outgrown childhood. Still 
greater is the difference as to the time when the various 
parts of the body develop. The brain of the ape grows 
less than any other part of his body; it is usually com- 
plete before the change of teeth takes place, whereas in 
man the real development only begins then. In the 
ape, directly after the change of teeth the quick growth 
of the jaws and facial bones begins, and the enormous 
increase in the outer parts of the skull, which are the 
distinguishing marks of the bestial character." 

Professor Ranke, speaking before a meeting of the 
German Anthropological Society, at Berlin, 3 August, 
1880, gave an account of the scientific work lately done 
by Th. Bischoff, A. Ecker, and R. Virchow. In the 
course of his remarks he said : " The popular writings 

1 " Correspondenzblatt fur Anthropologic," 1881, p. 9. 

2 Virchow, " Menschen- und Affenschadel,' p. 25. 

3 The account may be found in the 1 3th volume of the " Archiv 
fiir Anthropologic. "' 



RUDIMENTARY FORMATIONS. l6l 

of the present day would almost lead us to suppose that 
the differences between man and the anthropoid apes 
are so slight that if the latter were committed to the 
care of a German schoolmaster for a few generations 
they would develop into man. This view is decidedly 
controverted by comparative pathological anatomy, and 
by the history of development. The savants I have 
named are distinctly opposed to that popular philosoph- 
ical tendency in natural science which falsely seeks to 
entrench itself behind the name of a great English 
savant. The most eminent biologists are distinctly and 
openly opposed to the way in which scientific conclusions 
are now made use of to establish assertions in natural 
philosophy." 

ioi. (5) Rudimentary Formations.— Judging by 
the importance which Darwin attaches to rudimentary 
formations in the theory of descent, it was to be 
expected that they would play an important part 
m the descent of man. Indeed, he tells us that 
several muscles, the plica semilunaris of the eye, the 
hairs of the eyebrow, the wisdom tooth, the supra- 
condyloid hole on the upper arm of man, etc., find a 
scientific explanation only as reminders of corresponding 
formations in the primordial animal man. We regret 
that, for want of space, we cannot go into details and 
follow up these reduced inheritances of Darwin's 
progenitors, as it would take up too much space to 
speak at length on the rudimentary muscles of the 
skin and ear, as well as on the lengthened hair in the 
eyebrows of some persons, which evidently represent 
the feelers that are used by many lower animals as 
organs of feeling, 1 or on the rudimentary sense of smell 
in man— in a word, on all the arrested organs of the 
human body. We shall notice only one of these inter- 
1 Darwin, " Descent of Man," vol. i., p. 24. 



]62 MAN AND BEAST. 

esting rudiments, on account of the prominence which 
it holds in the theory of descent. 

The famous sculptor Woolner is at work on his 
" Puck " He intends to give it pointed ears, and there- 
fore studies with the greatest care the ears of men and 
monkeys; and lol he discovers in the exterior of the ear 
of many men and women a small peculiarity, an evi- 
dent proof " that these pointed ears descend from Dar- 
win's primogenitor. Examine the interior rim of the 
ear-shell, a little above the middle, and you may dis- 
cover this " proof *' that your ancestors had pointed ears. 
It may be recognized as a small prominent point that 
not only projects inwards, but also often outwards ; m the 
latter case it becomes visible when we look at the head 
either from the front or from behind. 

Let us now follow Darwin in his study of monkey 

ears We remark in many monkeys-for instance, in 

the baboon, and some macaci-a slight pointing of the 

tipper half of the ear, but we do not perceive any folding 

of the margin towards the inside. If, however, we 

Imagine this folding carried out, then a slight point 

would project inwards towards the centre, and probably 

a little outwards from the centre. Henee, what can be 

" scientifically " more certain than the assumption ha 

man's ear was once pointed like the baboon s, and ^tha 

after the folding was accomplished the projecting point 

was formed? .-, , 

Great as is our satisfaction with this more to evident 
« proof " of our simian descent, we should like to have a 
little clearer explanation on one point. Darwin, when 
speaking of man's pointed ear, impresses on us that 
every mark, however insignificant it may be, must be 
the result of a definite cause. Now what is the cause 
of the folding of the ear in the baboon, man s ancestor? 
Of what use was it? " It appears," says Darwin, to 



EMBRYOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. 163 

be in some manner connected with the entire exterior 
ear being permanently pressed backwards." ' Is that a 
cause in the scientific sense? And why is the entire 
. exterior ear pressed backwards ? Would it not have been 
more advantageous if the ears of our primitive ancestors 
had retained the mobility which we often admire in the 
horse or mule ? 

102. (6) Embryological Development.— We have 
m a former chapter commented on the embryonic develop- 
ment of animals as set forth by the advocates of material- 
istic science. Man develops from a seed the one hundred 
and twenty-fifth part of an inch in diameter, which does 
not differ m any manner from the seed of other animals. 2 
1 he human embryo in its early stages can hardly be 
distinguished from that of other members of the verte 
brate kingdom. " The origin and the early steps in the 
development of man are identical with those in the forms 
immediately below him in the animal kingdom. Without 
doubt, he (man) is nearer to the ape in this regard than 
the apes are to the dog." ■ Haeckel, in his latest work 
on anthropology, lays particular stress on this " original 
relation between ontogeny and phytogeny " 

Before Darwin, Haeckel had tried to support his thesis 
by appealing to the process of embryonic development « 
He asserted that the homology between the human 
embryo and that of the dog can be explained only on 
the hypothesis that man is descended from some lower 
mammal, and that this is the reason why man at the 

Laach'TsT/ °\ ^"j 01 L ' * 22; Cf - " Stimmen aus Maria- 
i^aacfi, 1875, vol. i., p. 80. 

8 Embryology teaches that all life begins in an egg and that 
all have the same chemical composition. Howevef,' they are 

Agas°s L " e A t r;- th M re lt ne at ,east four embr >™ i; ^LZ 

Agassis, Atlantic Monthly," Jan., 1874, p. 93 
' Cf. Huxley, " Position of Man in Nature " p 81 
' Haeckel, " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte, " p 353 



l6 . MAN AND BEAST. 

beginning of his development sinks to the plane of his 
lowest ancestors by a kind of reversion—" atavism. " But 
what is to be proved in this argument is used as a proof 
—in other words, Haeckel argues in a circle. Listen to 

Dr. Hettinger: _ 

" Were the descent of man from an animal proved, it 
could be used as an explanation for his embryonic devel- 
opment; but this is not the case. Besides, the parallel- 
ism in the development is neither as complete nor as 
general as is asserted; only the embryos of vertebrate 
animals show it, and these only within their class; no 
vertebrate appears as a membranous animal or mollusk. 
In the lower classes of animals even retrograding meta- 
morphoses appear. Besides the major proposition that 
the seed of man does not differ from that of other ani- 
mals is false. Darwin and Haeckel, if they wish to 
speak correctly, must say: The seed of man, at present 
and according to appearances, cannot be distinguished 
from that of other animals. But that there is a difference 
the development itself proves, because in the one it 
brings forth a man and in the other a dog; every being 
produces young according to its own kind; hence the 
embryos in the different living beings— man included— 
are not alike, but are different in kind and species, 
although physico-chemical examination is unable to 
establish this difference. Life does not allow itself to 
be examined with the probe, and we cannot subject it to 
alembics and retorts. Therefore this fact truly proves 
the existence of another force for the bringing forth of 
living beings than merely physico-chemical powers. 
Again, the development of the individual until the genus 
and species are completed cannot be brought into paral- 
lelism with the asserted development of the genera and 
species into new higher genera and species. For the 
embryo is not a full-grown individual, and instead of 



UNIVERSALITY. 1 65 

tending towards a new form, always tends to homo- 
geneousness with its parents. If a man should spring 
from the embryo of a dog, or if a dog should spring from 
the seed of a man, then the comparison would be justi- 
fied. Finally, the fact of embryonal development in man 
militates against Darwin and Haeckel. For, during his 
development in the womb, man morphologically passes 
through the various stages of the lower organisms until 
he reaches the highest— i. e. , the human form, without 
being influenced from without ; so that neither " natural 
selection," nor the "struggle for life" determines this 
development. Therefore, there is in the germ of the 
human being a principle for its development which acts 
according to immanent laws, and builds up the human 
organism." 1 

io 3- (7) Universality. — Man's body can live under 
all the climatic conditions found on the earth — a quality 
we do not discover in animals. Every animal has its 
appointed land and climate, and its existence is en- 
dangered if removed thence. Man can live under all 
climatic relations, accustom himself to the hot sun of 
Africa or Asia, or to the eternal snows and cold of the 
northern regions. His body is adapted for every kind 
of nourishment — flesh, fish, roots, vegetables, fruit, 
farina, etc. — and he can support himself in every country 
without much difficulty. 

In the body of animals we perceive at the first glance 
the end for which they were created or designed. We 
can see that the organs of each species are adapted to 
their natural pursuits of life. In one, they are arranged 
for flying ; in another, for swimming ; in some for creep- 
ing; in others, for running, etc. If they were taken 
from their habitat and natural sphere of life and habits, 
they would perish. But man can accustom himself 
1 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. i. 1, pp. 424, 425. 



1 66 MAN AND BEAST. 

to all pursuits of life, to every change of climate and 
foo&. All his organs are wonderfully harmonized for a 
cosmopolitan life ; the symmetry, harmony, and adapta- 
bility of each show that his corporal life is not its own 
end, but that each organ is destined to serve as an instru- 
ment to the higher activity of his soul. 

We must add, however, that man does not seem to 
be the only cosmopolitan being. Hitherto it was held 
as a rule that certain kinds of animals could not live 
in certain regions. This rule, however, seems to admit 
of exceptions. Only lately, for instance, Milne-Edwards 
has proved that the common mole extends from western 
Europe to Japan. Dobson observed the bat of western 
Europe at Nikko, Japan; the late-flying bat (Vesper- 
tilio serotinus) is found not only in Europe, but also 
in Central America and California, from the west 
of Europe to China, in fact over the whole earth. 
Whales are found in both hemispheres ; the famous 
dolphin, formerly considered as peculiar to the 
Mediterranean Sea, has been caught on the shores of 

Tasmania. 

The albatross is travelling continually, and moves all 
over the earth; a sea-swallow which does not differ 
from the Sterna Caspia of the European and Asiatic 
seas is found frequently near New Zealand, and appears 
to be spread all over the globe, for it is found also in 
Australia, Cochin-China, Madagascar, on the shores of 
the Red Sea, and in North America. 

The reptiles are, as a rule, no great lovers of long 
voyages ; and nevertheless some large sea-crocodiles are 
found in nearly all the tropical and moderate zones- 
nay, one kind of sea-crocodile must be considered a per- 
fect cosmopolite. It is said that the Venus shell has 
been observed on the Antilles, in the west of Europe, in 
Senegal, on the Canary Islands, in the Mediterranean 



THE SENSES. \6j 

and Red seas, at the Cape of Good Hope, and in Aus- 
tralia. 

Many spiders make great voyages against their will, 
and spread their kind over different parts of the earth. 
The wandering locust (Pachytelns migratorius) embraces 
a domain which extends from Madeira, in the west, 
to the Fiji Islands, and in latitude from the 50th 
degree north to the 40th degree south. Its home 
seems to be in the swamps and marshes of southeastern 
Europe, in Hungary, and southern Russia. 

104. (8) The Senses. — The senses of animals as a 
rule surpass the senses of man. Their sight, hearing, 
and smell are stronger and keener. The eagle can bear 
the glare of the sun while he wings his way through the 
bracing air ; the falcon can see his prey while coursing in 
aerial space ; the hare can detect the faintest sound near 
by ; the dog can scent his prey or the footsteps of his 
master anywhere; the pigeon can return to its cote, 
though liberated at sea, hundreds of miles away. Man, 
if he were obliged to depend on his sight and hearing, 
would perhaps equal some animals ; this is proved by 
our American Indians and other savage races, whose 
hearing, sight, and running powers are marvellous. 
However, there is only one sense very prominent in 
the animal — the sense most usually exercised in pro- 
curing subsistence, in self-defence, or in attack. No 
animal has all the senses as perfect as man, and none has 
them so completely and judiciously under control for 
every necessary occasion. 

It needs but little philosophy to learn and prove that 
the animal body has not the same end as that of man. 
The animal, in make-up, organization, manner of living, 
characteristic traits and activity is fitted only for a 
material life. Man, on the contrary, by his organization 
1 " Jahrbuch der JNaturwissenschaften," 1886-1887, p. 284. 



1 68 MAN AND BEAST. 

and intelligence shows a higher origin and end. He 
shows he is possessed of higher attributes, higher ideals, 
and higher aspirations ; that the destination of his body 
is something higher than earth ; that it is during life 
the tenement of a God-given soul, immortal and im- 
perishable. 

105 . Recapitulation. — To recapitulate wnat we have 
said. Even supposing the theory of descent to be true, 
its application to man is arbitrary, because man differs 
more conspicuously from the highest ape than any two 
kinds of animals differ from each other ; because there 
are no intermediate forms that bridge over the wide gulf 
between rational man and the irrational brute, and the 
chasm is too wide and deep between man and monkey to 
be bridged over by assumptions. It has been proved 
that microcephalous idiots are by no means such in- 
termediate forms. Only one possibility remains ; such 
intermediate forms may have existed in the dim past, and 
become extinct like other species or organic forms. 
Have we any proof that beings more man-like than the 
gorilla or more ape-like than the negro have ever ex- 
isted? Huxley has exhaustively discussed this question, 
and all know he is not likely to favor our views. He 
ends his discussion with the confession that the question 
must be answered in the negative, and that we must 
rest content with the hope that perhaps in still older 
strata the fossilized bones of an ape more anthropoid, 
or of a man more pithecoid than any yet known await 
the researches of some great and unborn paleontologist. 
From the foregoing it follows that between the bodily 
conformation of man and the animal there is some sim- 
ilarity ; but that there is an absolute identity in physical 
structure between man and any other animal we have 
to deny. If there are points of resemblance between 
the two there are also points of divergence. Besides, 



CHARACTERS OF THE PHYSICAL ORDERS. 169 

whatever similarity exists proves nothing, as Dr. Het- 
tinger says: "However, supposing that man's struct- 
ure is in every respect homogeneous (which is not the 

case) with that of an animal — of an ape, for instance 

what would this prove ? That man therefore descends 
from an ape? Not at all, it would only establish that 
his body is like it, but not that the likeness results from, 
descent from an animal, that is, a monkey, in the manner 
accepted by Darwin and others. . . . Why should man 
not be like an animal in body? No doubt man is an 
animal, but a rational animal, that is, an animal endowed 
with reason, which makes him a being of quite a different 
kind." 1 

106. Characters of the Psychical Order.— The 
proper difference between man and animal lies in man's 
soul. Two faculties, reason and intelligence, consti- 
tute between man and animal an essential difference, 
a barrier absolutely insurmountable by way of pro- 
gressive transformation or evolution; in short, an abyss. 
The existence, the properties, the nature of these facul- 
ties proper to man are demonstrated by a series of facts, 
established by observation, rigorously determined after 
a method and with a certainty which does not yield in 
anything to scientific method and to scientific certainty. 
Every phenomenon requires a proportionate cause ; the 
nature of the phenomenon infallibly reveals the nature 
of the force that produces it. Such is the double prin- 
ciple, absolutely indisputable, which will serve as basis 
for our demonstration, as it will serve as basis for scien- 
tific determination. 2 

In order to avoid all confusion of language, let us first 
distinguish intelligence from reason. Intelligence is the 
general faculty of understanding, and comprehends the 

1 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. i. 1, p. 392. 

a Cf. Duilhe, de St. Project, "Apologie Scientinque,"ch. xvii. 



l y Q MAN AND BEAST. 

different kinds of knowledge ; both sensible and reflec- 
tive, or rational knowledge. Using intelligence in. this 
sense, we may admit the expression, otherwise a little 
hard and too commonly employed—" the intelligence of 
the animals. " ' There are phenomena of sensible knowl- 
edge in the animal, which offer the appearance, but only 
the appearance, of superior knowledge. 

107. (1) Reason is the power to abstract, generalize, 
and invent, the power to seize principles, first and 
necessary truths, immaterial realities, the conceptions of 
being, substance, cause, simplicity, unity, plurality, of 
the true, good, and beautiful, of time, space, of the in- 
finite and absolute. Reason is an element, an essential 
condition of liberty, responsibility, spirituality and im- 
mortality ; it cannot be reduced by analysis to other fac- 
ulties ; it cannot be conceived as a synthesis or as one 
resulting from inferior powers, much less as a function 
of purely material organs. Such is reason, the principle 
of intellectual knowledge proper to man. 

The sensible knowledge common to man and the ani- 
mal has for object the particular, the singular, the con- 
crete; this individual, this pleasure, this need, this pain. 
It comprehends the remembrance of visible things, the 
faculty to retain, to recall, to associate entire impres- 
sions; it is sufficient to explain all the facts attributed to 
what is called the intelligence of animals. 

Montaigne said that there is more difference be- 
tween man and man than between animal and animal. 
Bossuet cannot refrain from pitying so eminent a mind ; 

1 The word " intelligence " in the etymological and rigorous 
sense does not differ from reason ; it is the acting or active intel- 
lect of the scholastics; the faculty to discern and comprehend the 
species the intellectual, the universal, from the material images 
furnished through the senses ; the power to abstract the essence 
from the things that are gross, and to render them intelligible. 



REASON. 171 

it may be that he is serious in saying some ridiculous 
things; that he jests and trifles with serious matters. 
Transformist anthropology has taken hold of Montaigne's 
words and treasures them up for every occasion. It takes 
the fossil man of early quaternary times, such as he is 
supposed to have been, and the savage man such as he is 
believed to be, and compares these with the animals that 
appear most intelligent, and concludes, dogmatically, 
that even from the standpoint of reason and of the power 
of reflection there is a greater difference between the 
man of genius and the savage than between the savage 
and the gorilla or chimpanzee. 

In dealing with this question two things are often for- 
gotten or overlooked: one, that all men having the same 
nature, the perfection of the soul must be examined 
with regard to all its powers wherever the human species 
can develop itself; the other, that the most stupid men 
— as we shall show further on — have faculties superior 
to the most perfect animals. But let us admit that there 
exist savage men so degraded that not the least trace of 
reason can be found in them. This would be a purely 
accidental state, and would not at all affect their nature 
as men. Reason in them is irredeemably atrophied, 
annihilated for want of culture or use, but as a faculty 
it is unimpaired. What proves this is that the descendant 
of savages may be a civilized man, a man of genius. 
But the animal and its descendants, in spite of all cul- 
ture, cannot pass beyond the limits of their natural intel- 
ligence. With the hide of a rhinoceros, the wool of a 
sheep, or the shaggy coat of a bear, are never associated 
the feelings of the human heart, nor the intellectual 
sensibility of the cultivated mind. Reason, which re- 
flects, generalizes, invents, adapts, and progresses, is 
always and essentially absent in the animal ; all these 
faculties are proper only toman. Hence, between man, 



1^2 MAN AND BEAST. 

•whoever he may be, and the beast, whatever it may be, 
there is an insuperable abyss. 

1 08. (2) Liberty. — The second faculty which estab- 
lishes between man and the animal a specific difference 
is liberty. " From the principle of reflection which acts 
in us," says Bossuet, "springs a new principle, namely, 
liberty. The soul elevated through reason above cor- 
poral objects is not carried away by the impressions of 
these objects and of itself. Thus it attaches itself to 
whatever it pleases, and considers whatever it wishes, in 
order to make use thereof and to obtain what it proposes 

to itself." 1 

The philosophical thesis of liberty, so falsely inter- 
preted and so unfortunately perverted in our day, even 
by the most distinguished minds, cannot enter into our 
programme. Here as elsewhere we keep as near as 
possible to the methods of experimental physiology and 
psychology — or, in other words, to psycho-physical meth- 
ods. Therefore, let us examine attentively the play of 
"reflex action," that is, a reaction proportionate to the 
direct action. Man alone, endowed with free will, has 
the power to interrupt, modify, or turn aside the reflex 
transmission of an impressional movement, the natural 
effect of a cerebral vibration. He is not, like the atom, 
subject to mechanical action, nor like the animal, to 
physiological and necessary involuntary action. True, 
he does not annihilate the force put into play, but he di- 
rects it; he averts and restricts it; he can even transform 
and reverse it, as the engineer reverses the motive power 
of his engine. To a cerebral vibration naturally des- 
tined to provoke pain or anger, he can answer, and in 
fact does answer sometimes, by a contrary expression- 
scorn, indifference, joy, sorrow, or a smile. The tes- 
timony of facts here supports the testimony of conscious- 
1 " De la Connaissance de Dieu et de Soi-meme," ch. v., 9. 



CONVENTIONAL LANGUAGE. 173 

ness. Under the knife of the vivisector the animal 
cannot help manifesting outwardly the suffering which 
it endures; man, even the most degraded, may endure 
being scalped , shot, or hung without showing pain or fear. 
Indeed, to evince signs of pain or fear under the most 
trying circumstances is deemed a lasting disgrace among 
the American Indians. 

The wonderful expressiveness of the human face is an- 
other physical peculiarity which removes man far away 
from the animal. Animals are capable only of the rudest 
expressions of anger, fear, and attachment. Man alone 
weeps, and weeps as early as the fourth month of his 
infant life. Man alone laughs, alone has the muscles by 
which the corners of the mouth contract in a smile, and 
that smile plays on his features as early as the forty- 
fifth, day of his infant existence. Man alone blushes, 
and the blush, even Darwin admits, is a most peculiar 
and human expression. It is involuntary but universal 
among- men. The blind blush, as well as the most 
barbarous races — the Malays, Polynesians, Fuegeans. 1 
Again, the expression of anxiety, despair, contempt, re- 
flection, pride, horror, etc., is peculiar to the human face. 
Animals are incapable thereof, because the transmission 
of nervous and cerebral movements is beyond their 
control. Man, who is reasonable and free, can do what 
the animal cannot. His reason and liberty are here mani- 
fest; they explain the faculty, which he alone possesses, 
to create language, language in which there is no nat- 
ural relation between the sign and the thing signified. 2 

109. (3) Conventional Language. — The two qualities 
characteristic of the human soul — reason and liberty — are 
made more manifest by an ensemble of facts, of internal 
and external operations, directly and universally ob- 

1 Behrens, " Lecture on Charles Darwin." 

2 Cf. J. Rambasson, " Phenomenes Nerveux," etc. 



1/4 MAN AND BEAST. 

served, which result from these qualities and lead to 
the scientific determination of man. 

This ensemble of phenomena comprises conventional 
language, whether verbal, written, or by signs; the 
power to invent, to progress — perfectibility; the per- 
ception of moral good and evil — the moral conscience; 
the perception of the beautiful — the aesthetic faculty; the 
perception of the divine, the idea of God and of what 
relates to this idea. Here we shall speak only of language 
and perfectibility, because they are most easily reached 
by observation. 

What enables man to live in community and inter- 
course with his fellow-men, for the purposes of defence 
and attack, for his own well-being and pleasure, is the 
faculty of language, the possession of which man alone 
enjoys. Thanks especially to this incomparable instru- 
ment, he can develop his intelligence by fixing his ideas, 
by receiving ideas from his kindred, and by communi- 
cating them in turn. " Quel est ton sort, dis-moi? U etre 
homme et de parler" says Sosie in Moliere. Articulate 
language is exclusively the portion of man, and he makes 
use of very different sounds in various countries, in differ- 
ent latitudes, and under different conditions of life, to ex- 
press the same ideas. The foundation of language, in 
spite of this variety of arbitrary sounds, is identical every- 
where, composed of the same elements and governed by 
the same fundamental laws. It is a long time since 
Quintilian said : " When the Creator distinguished us 
from the animals, it was especially by the gift of lan- 
guage. They surpass us in strength, in patience, in size 
of body, in longevity, in quickness, in a thousand other 
qualities, and especially in dispensing with all assistance 
from without Guided only by nature, they learn very 
soon and by themselves to walk, to nourish themselves, 
to swim. They are provided with something to protect 



LANGUAGE, REASON, AND LIBERTY. 1/5 

them against the cold; they have weapons which are 
natural to them ; they find their nourishment wherever 
they go. Man — with what effort does he procure all 
these things! Reason is our portion, and seems to asso- 
ciate us with the immortals ; but howweak would reason 
be without the faculty to express our thoughts bywords, 
which faithfully interpret them! This the animals 
want, and this is worth more than the intelligence of 
which, we must say, they are absolutely deprived." ' 

The physiological differences then reveal their high 
importance in their uses, as correlated to the mental 
differences which, by common confession, are "enor- 
mous." A gauge for these may be found in language, the 
power of articulate and intelligible expression, the vehicle 
of civilization, the creator and conservator of literature. 
It is language that, in Huxley's own phrase, " constitutes 
and makes man what he is." Philology, therefore, as well 
as comparative anatomy, must be consulted on the ques- 
tion of man's origin. This claim Professor Whitney em- 
phatically enforces. 2 And Max Mriller, an acknowledged 
master in this department, declares : " Man means the 
thinker, and the first manifestation of thought is speech." 

no. (4) What We Owe to Language, Reason, 
and Liberty. — Thanks to language, man can transmit 
to his posterity what he has accomplished. Living 
speech and the written word, of which the latter 
gives a kind of an eternity to the former, allow us to 
gather treasures of experience heaped up by those who 
have lived before us, and to leave them as our most 
precious heritage to those who will come after us. While 
the instinct of the animal is unchangeable, the reason 
of man is essentially progressive. The swallow builds 
its nest as it did in the dawn of its creation ; the bee 

1 Quintilian, translated by La Harpe, Dijon, 1820. 

2 " Language and the Study of Language," pp. 8, 46, 53, 381. 



i;6 MAN AND BEAST. 

gathers honey from the blossoms of the field and con- 
structs its honeycombs as in days of old ; but the man of 
our days, although physically the same as our first an- 
cestors, has accomplished great things since then. No 
longer does he dress in the skins of wild beasts nor cover 
himself with leaves ; he does not shield himself against 
sun and weather by the shade of trees, nor make his 
dwelling-place in caves ; he knows how to weave and 
sew wool, cotton, silk, and other textile fabrics ; he knows 
how to build houses, construct ships and railroads ; he has 
invented steam and electricity for motive power, for the 
transmission of his ideas, for the generation of heat and 
light, and for other purposes ; he knows how to make 
works of artistic and useful design, to adorn and add 
comfort to life. While some savage tribes still appear 
in a semi-nude state and live in miserable huts, it is only 
necessary that they should be transplanted to cities, to 
enjoy the comforts and benefits of civilization, and all 
the intellectual and artistic treasures of former genera- 
tions. 

Thanks to reason and free will, even the most degen- 
erate races have their own forms of industry. If there be 
differences between races in this and other points, they 
do not consist in the faculty itself, but rather in the 
progress and needs of life. Everywhere man knows how 
to make fire, 1 cut wood, cook food, invent and make in- 
struments for hunting and fishing, prepare skins and 
other material for covering, construct canoes, rafts, or 
devices for going on water. His wants and mode of 
life tend to industry. Franklin, being struck with ad- 
miration by this gift of the Creator, defined man " a tool- 
making animal." 2 This definition can indeed serve to 

1 Cf. M. Jolly, "L'Origine du Feu, " in "Nature," 1879, vol. 
ii., pp. 144, 145. 

2 L. Noire, " Das Werkzeug," Mainz, 1880, p. 24. 



THE TASMANIANS. 



177 



distinguish us from the animals, because we are the only 
creatures that know how to invent and make tools and 
make use of them. 

Man alone is possessed of inventive genius, and the hand 
is trained to do the bidding of this and other faculties ; 
so wondrous is its structure, so manifold are its uses, that 
it has been called " the chief and distinguishing feature of 
the human frame." Without it, as Galen said centuries 
ago, man "would no longer work as an artificer, nor pro- 
tect himself with a breast-plate, nor fashion a sword or 
spear, nor invent a bridle to mount the horse and hunt 
the lion. Neither could he follow the arts of peace, 
fashion the pipe and lyre, build houses, erect altars, in- 
scribe them, and by means of letters hold communion 
with the wisdom of antiquity." By its means we can 
supply all our wants rapidly, overleap rivers and moun- 
tains, span distances, connect the world by commerce and 
instantaneous conversation, fly through the air, pass 
over land with the rapidity of a bird, dig in the bowels 
of earth, and make its treasures minister to our wants and 
enterprise; in a word, subdue the forces of nature. 

in. The Tasmanians. — For a long time it was gen- 
erally believed that the Tasmanians had no instrument 
for fishing, but only a straight pole sharpened at the end. 
According to Sir John Lubbock, they did not know how 
to rekindle a fire when it was extinguished. But M. 
Jolly proves that Lubbock was mistaken ; they see that 
the sharpened and polished assagais nourish and keep 
up fire, and this would in itself be sufficient to reveal the 
secret to man. Quatrefages collected among the poor 
inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land many proofs of much 
more advanced industry than is generally credited to 
them. The Tasmanians, in order to dislodge the sarigues 
(opossums) , which often hide themselves very high up 
in the branches of trees, used a thick rope which sup- 



178 MAN AND BEAST. 

ported the climbers, while with a stone hatchet they cut 
the notches or steps in the bark, which excited the 
wonder of early travellers. 1 

We thus behold a people whom Dove considered 
hardly endowed with intelligence, following a very 
rational and ingenious method of climbing very large 

trees a method which is often practised among peoples 

who are rated quite high in industrial civilization. 
We may even learn some things from these unfortunate 
islanders — one thing in particular, which is a highly 
characteristic trait, and which may put to blush our 
boasted refinement : 

112. The Sense of Shame.— Among the phenomena 
and manifestations of the intellectual order which prove 
the essential difference between man and the beast is the 
sense of shame. " A spider's web," says Joubert, " made 
of silk and light would not be more difficult to execute 
than the answer to this question : What is the sense of 
shame?" Hence we shall not try to define it, and will 
only say that it is derived from both our moral and, 
our aesthetic sense; that it is a manifestation both of 
the good and beautiful, and a discrimination between 
moral and immoral conduct. Quatrefages tells us of the 
Tasmanians, whom he studied so carefully, and who 
are represented as the lowest savages: "Their daily 
habits show a profound sentiment of decency and sense 
of shame. The boys who had passed beyond childhood 
had theii fires and quarters apart in the camp. In the 
morning they went away early, in order not to be pres- 
ent at the awakening of the tribe. The young men never 
ran around in the woods with the women, and when they, 
met a group of the other sex, they had to go off in an- 
other direction." 2 

1 Quatrefages, " Hommes Fossiles et Hommes Sauvages," 1884, 
p 330> 2 Quatrefages, op. cit. 



THE SENSE OF SHAME. jyg 

To pretend to find and recognize in the animal, even 
the most intelligent and best domesticated, even a trace of 
the sense of shame is ridiculously absurd and nonsensi- 
cal. Not even the most enthusiastic transformist would 
have the hardihood to venture such an assertion, and, as 
far as we know, no one has dared to do so. Hence we 
can reiterate our statement, that between man and the 
beast there is a great difference, a wide gulf which no 
one can bridge over. 

In the last chapter of his " Prehistoric Times, "' entitled 
"Concluding Remarks, "one of the patriarchs of prehis- 
toric and archeologico-ethnological science, whom we 
have quoted before, Sir John Lubbock, condenses his 
theory in an argument of the most striking interest, 
which allows him to pass softly and smoothly from the 
ape to man. 

We know that apes use round stones to break nuts ; 2 
from this to making use of a sharp stone in order to cut 
is surely not so far ; from this to sharpening stones by 
chance, if not by reflection, there is only one step; the 
stone roughly cut and the polished stone touch each 
other; when we polish a stone we cannot fail to notice, 
that it grows warm ; next the fire is invented. 

Here we have a direct and rapid way to reach civiliza- 
tion. However, it seems to us that with the same system, 
by forcing the steam a little higher, the grand triumph of 
motive power might be achieved. It is too bad that Sir 
John stopped short on so fascinating and promising an 
advance for his ape, and did not pursue his fecund, reason- 
ing. Any animal, if not blind like the mole, can see an 
apple fall. From the fall of an apple to the hypothesis of 
universal attraction is surely not so far; Newton has. 

1 "L'Homme avant l'Histoire," ch. xiv. 

We shall meet this statement, as well as some others, in the 
next chapter. 



j g MAN AND BEAST. 

proved it. From the hypothesis of attraction to the ex- 
planation of celestial mechanism there is only a step ; 
Laplace has proved it. 

Without reflective reason and free will it is just as im- 
possible to invent and make the stone hatchet, or the 
needle with its eye, as to invent the compass, the print- 
ing press, or the steam locomotive. These inventions 
suppose intellectual operations which may differ in de- 
gree, but which are the same in kind, and presuppose 
the activity of the same faculties. 

M Fabre, who, we regret, cannot be quoted at length, 
shows by facts and by various profound observations 
the inertness of instinct; that is to say, the extreme 
stupidity of animals alongside of their extreme clever- 
ness So long as they follow the straight line which 
has been primitively traced for them, they work prodi- 
gies of cleverness; but as soon as they branch off from 
this line their doings are prodigies of stupidity. " The 
animals which we behold achieving the most beautiful 
works," says Bossuet, "are those which appear to have 

the least sense." 

113 Conclusion.— We have shown the extreme and 
essential difference which exists between man and the 
beast by adducing two orders of facts or phenomena- 
the phenomena of artificial language and the phenomena 
of invention, of industrial civilization.' We cannot dis- 
cuss this subject in all its bearings ; but we trust what we 
have said and what we are going to say is sufficient for 
the attentive reader to understand that there is a vast 
difference between man and animals, not only m body 
but especially in his soul-not only in degree but also in 
kind We purpose in the next chapter to meet some ot 
the objections brought up by those who pretend to be- 

• Cf. F. Duilhe, de St. Project, " Apologie Scientifique," ch. 



xviii. 



CONCLUSION. 18 1 

lieve that man descends from an animal, and that there 
is between them only a difference of degree. 

Some one has facetiously said that he did not care 
whence he came, if he only knew whither he was going. 
The question of our material and historical origin may 
throw light on our destiny; but, after all, human destiny 
is the great practical problem of human life. And 
a creature's destiny depends upon its organization. It 
matters comparatively little how we came into exist- 
ence. Here we are; what are we, and what is to become 
of us? The reply to the first question gives us a clue 
to the answer to the second. Let every man take counsel 
with himself, and I am sure that the deepest voice 
within us, heard in our profoundest convictions, in our 
loftiest aspirations, in our ineffable yearnings, in the 
spirit's daring ambition for the infinite, in its passion to 
possess God and to be possessed by Him, will proclaim 
to our expectant souls that, however linked to the earthly 
and perishable, we are none other than the offspring of 
the living God. 1 

' Behrens, " Lecture on Charles Darwin," p. 24. 



CHAPTER VI. 

MAN AND BEAST.— Concluded. 

Instinct and intelligence.— Difference between the intelligence 
of man and that of the animal.— Objections and answers.— 
The animal has passions and affections like man. — Man is 
not the only animal that can speak.— Self-consciousness. — 
Individuality.— Abstraction.— Belief in God.— Sense of 
beauty.— Moral sentiment.— Destructive criticism of Dar- 
winism by Professor Virchow. 

114. The Mental Faculties of Man and of Ani- 
mals According to Darwin.— Indefatigable Darwin I 
He not only occupied himself with the corporal structure 
■of animals, comparing it with that of man, but also ex- 
tended his labors to their mental faculties, and he did 
this with a dexterity that is indicative of the genius of 
paradox. Listen to the conclusion at which he arrived: 
" There is no essential difference between man and the 
highest mammalia as regards the mental faculties." 

Thus, according to Darwin, man and beast, from the 
intellectual point of view, are one and the same being. 
Let us note this. However, before discussing the views 
of Darwin, let us try to understand well what is meant 
by these so-called "mental faculties." 

115. Instinct and Intelligence. — By mental facul- 
ties we understand two primary attributes — instinct and 
intelligence. But primary as they are, there is a marked 
contrast between them. In instinct, everything is blind, 
necessary, invariable. In intelligence, everything is 
elective, conditional, modifiable. In instinct, every- 



182 



INSTINCT. 183 

thing is innate and fatal ; in intelligence, everything 
results from experience and instruction, everything is 
free. Finally, in instinct, everything is personal and 
limited; whilst in intelligence everything is general 
and perfectible. 

When we ask what faculties are included in the 
generic term "instinct," we may say that it comprises 
all those mental faculties which lead to the performance 
of actions that are adaptive in character, but pursued 
without the knowledge of the relation between the means 
employed and the ends attained. 

116. What is Instinct? Examples. — We cannot 
deny that most animals, by a kind of natural intuition, 
or, if you please, by instinct and intelligence, are in- 
formed of their present needs and their future necessities. 
Who does not know that young ducks, hardly out of the 
egg, rush toward the water, this being their element, 
and the young colt, hardly born, goes and seizes the teat 
of its mother? 

The larvae of a great number of hymenopterous insects 
are carnivorous. Their prey must be both living and 
immovable, for the least movement would, in the first 
place, endanger their eggs, and afterward the small 
worms, both of which are very delicate. The animal 
solves the problem by paralyzing its victim ; it destroys 
its movement and leaves organic vitality intact. Let 
us take, for instance, the ammophila (a kind of hornet). 
This animal feeds its larvae with a very lively caterpil- 
lar, which must be stored up in the same cell with the egg, 
but only after having lost all power of motion. Now, 
in this caterpillar the nervous centres are scattered in 
the rings of which its body is formed. One ring ren- 
dered motionless would not cause the insensibility of the 
next ring. They all have to be paralyzed. What the 
most expert physiologist would suggest the ammo- 



184 MAN AND BEAST. 

phila carries out ; its sting pierces one ring after the other 
(nine in all), until the animal is completely paralyzed. 
The victim, still alive, but incapable of movement, is 
then seized by the nape of the neck and dragged into the 
nest. 

The necrophori, when they have laid their eggs, go 
and seek dead meat and lay it alongside of the eggs, in 
order that the young ones, hardly hatched, may find their 
nourishment quite ready; sometimes they even lay their 
eggs into the dead meat itself. Who could have taught 
the ammophilse that their larvae are in need of live meat 
and the necrophori that the proper nourishment for their 
offspring is rotten meat? The pompilas offer even a 
more wonderful instance of foresight. They are wholly 
carnivorous, but they know — how do they know? — that 
their young at birth are herbivorous. Hence be- 
fore dying (for it is not given them ever to see their 
young) they place a lot of vegetable provisions at their 
disposal. 

Let us pass to another order of animals. These, en- 
dowed perhaps with less refined foresight, are distin- 
guished by the difficulty and perfection of their instinctive 
acts. 

The bird divines that it is in need of a nest, and this 
nest is a wonder, on account of the choice and combination 
of the materials used for its construction. The beaver 
knows beforehand that he will be in need of a hut, and 
this hut is a wonder, on account of the profound knowl- 
edge of architecture which the animal displays in its 
construction. 1 Finally, the spider knows that it is in 

1 Flourens relates the history of a young beaver which, taken 
on the banks of the Rhone, was brought up in the " Jardin des 
Plantes." It had been put in a cage, consequently had no need 
of a hut. However, as soon as it could procure the required 
material, it began to build one as perfect as that of the most 
skilful beaver. 



INSTINCT. 185 

need of a net, and this net is equally a wonder, both on 
account of its weaving and the success with which it 
serves as a snare. Here are faculties which reveal a 
great amount of intelligence, and, nevertheless, we call 
this intelligence "instinct." Why? Because however 
perfect the acts may be, which are its expression, the 
animal has neither learned, nor calculated, nor fore- 
seen them. It possessed the germ thereof from its birth 
as well as it possessed the germ of its physical develop- 
ment ; afterwards it executed them like a machine. The 
proof is the bird, which does not know how to make any- 
thing else but its nest; the spider, which can build 
nothing but its net. So fate has ordained. We may, 
therefore, compare the animals that perform these in- 
stinctive acts with a watch that unwinds its chain quite 
regularly, but the springs of which a powerful and in- 
telligent hand arranged long before. 

Another observation. Instinct not only constitutes an 
innate propensity to do certain things, always in the 
same manner; it is also, sometimes, an intermittent 
force which the animal obeys at certain moments. 

Watch the swallow in captivity. You may hide it in 
the interior of an apartment, consequently far from, its 
companions and from the atmospheric variations of the 
open air, in fact, from everything which may give it in- 
formation ; nevertheless when the time comes for mi- 
gration it shows quite a fever-like agitation ; it struggles 
in its cage, seeks an exit, and, not finding any, it throws 
itself against the bars with such violence that it tears 
out its feathers and rends its little breast, so as to be 
quite bloody. 

We may observe the same phenomenon, more or less 
clearly, in all other migrating birds and animals. Such 
is instinct. Let us now consider briefly " animal intelli- 
gence." 



1 86 man and beast. 

117. Intelligence may be United with Instinct. — 
Intelligence, we said, differs from instinct inasmuch as 
it is a reflective faculty. It may happen that it only 
combines with an act which, in principle, is the product 
of instinct. Thus, we come to speak of the spider, 
"whose net," to use the words of Reimars, "is on the 
pattern of rays diverging from a centre." If I tear this 
net the spider repairs it ; but it repairs it only in the 
torn spot, and does not touch the rest. In the spider, 
therefore, there is a machine-like instinct which makes 
the net; afterwards intelligence intervenes, which in- 
forms it of the spot to be repaired and also of the nature 
of the mending to be done. 

But animal intelligence can be exercised in a manner 
completely independent of instinct. It is applied to 
such spontaneous acts as indicate in the animal an im- 
pressibility similar to that of man— acts in which we 
sometimes find traces of human sentiment and even of 
human passion, as we shall very soon see. 

It is especially in the state of domestication, that is, of 
cohabitation with man, that the animal attains the high- 
est development, something that we might call heart 
and mind. Take the pointer, for instance. He has 
found the scent of the game ; he hesitates, slackens his 
pace, looks anxiously around, rather creeps than walks, 
finally shoots towards his prey with an immovable and 
piercing eye, which has something fascinating in it. 
Sometimes he even turns his head slightly toward his 
master, as if to ask him : " It is this way?" 

Take the shepherd dog. What solicitude, and, at the 
same time, what skill does he not display in watching 
the flock intrusted to his care! Always on the lookout, 
he keeps it in place and. is unmerciful in driving it from 
forbidden pastures ; and he does this with so sure an eye 
that he never makes a mistake. 



man's intelligence. 187 

How can we pass over the blind man's dog? Exam- 
ine his walk. It is slow, measured, interrupted by short 
stops, in order that the unfortunate, whose protector 
he has become, may find his position and take breath. 
See the care he takes to avoid the least obstacles on the 
road, even the smallest unevenness of the ground! See 
his caution in crossing streets and public places ! He is 
careful to prevent every sudden shock, every false step, 
every collision. With a suppliant expression of look 
he appeals to passers-by to drop a small coin in the 
dish he so humbly holds up. But this is not all. If 
his master should die he hardly has the courage to sur- 
vive him. This is animal intelligence. 

Among domestic animals, it is especially the dog which" 
shares to a certain degree our intelligence. There are 
some other animals, the horse and the elephant, for in- 
stance, whose intelligence deserves to be described; but 
let us pass to human instinct and intelligence. 

118. Man also has Instinct. — Man also has in- 
stinct, but in a less degree than the animal. The first 
act of the new-born child is an instinctive act. It 
lengthens or spreads out its lips instinctively, in order 
to take hold of the nipple which is to nourish it, and 
even makes slight movements of suction. Later on, man 
reveals other instincts. That which overrules all others 
in our days is the instinct of popularity ; the poet will 
abandon the muse, the lawyer the court, the doctor his 
patient, in order to crave the favors of the crowd. 

119. Man's Intelligence: Examples.— But it is 
by his intelligence that man is distinguished from 
the animals. We have already referred, to this point ; 
hence we shall be brief. In this respect there is such a 
sharp and deep line of demarcation between man and 
beast that some hesitate to apply the word "intelli- 
gence" to animals, through. fear that it might be looked 



1 88 MAN AND BEAST. 

upon as a concession to materialistic opinions! How- 
ever, these scruples are exaggerated. In fact, nothing 
proves more conclusively the immense superiority of 
man over the animal than a comparison of the two while 
performing certain actions which are common to them, 
and a study of the manner in which man supplies by 
his intelligence his lack of some of the means with which 
other creatures are endowed. 

Let us take the matter of food, for instance. Animals 
find their own support. The herbivora will browse on 
the first grass they find in the fields ; the carnivora will 
devour the first animal they can seize ; afterward, both 
will quench their thirst at some spring or brook, water 
being their only drink. 

And man? Although he is both herbivorous and car- 
nivorous, he must undoubtedly die of hunger were he 
limited to the expedients of these animals. He cannot, 
like the herbivora, live on the grass he finds ; he cannot, 
like the carnivora, eat meat raw; both must be prepared 
for him by the action of fire. But where and how 
procure this fire? Here intelligence comes to his as- 
sistance. Fire once obtained, man's intelligence will 
teach him the various ways of preparing the nourish- 
ment best fitted to his needs and tastes. It will teach 
him to grind wheat, extract the flour and make bread 
thereof. It will teach him to obtain from the grape, 
apple, barley, and other fermentable substances, drinks 
more agreeable than water and often more useful to his 

organism. 

Shelter? Most animals are in no need of shelter. 
Those that need it find it in the trunks of trees, under- 
brush, caves, or they instinctively dig for shelter. 

Nothing of the kind meets man's wants. True, our 
ancestors also dwelt in caves (hence the name, trog- 
lodytes), but their intelligence taught them to air them 



man's intelligence. 189 

sufficiently, to close them securely, and to furnish them 
adequately for the needs of subsistence. 

The animal is just as comfortable in the most pesti- 
lential marshes as in the most wholesome woods and 
plains. Man, on the contrary, has everything to dread, 
from the deadly exhalations of swamps. If he does not 
fall a victim to them, it is because his intelligence has 
taught him to fly from the localities where malaria 
reigns, or, if he is obliged to live there, the same intelli- 
gence again makes him acquainted with the medical 
properties of the plant fitted to combat the disease. 

Suppose that a man or an animal is wounded, that a 
vein is cut. The animal will stop bleeding naturally ; 
man will continue to bleed freely. What is the cause 
of this difference ? The blood of the animal is more coagu- 
lable than man's blood, and consequently more apt to 
form the clot of blood needed to act as an obturator. Man 
would die of hemorrhage if his intelligence did not in- 
form him of the means needed to stop the flowing of the 
blood. 

But enough of comparisons. We have said sufficient 
to show that there is an abyss between the faculties of 
man and those of the animal. While God has granted 
a certain kind of intelligence only to a small number of 
animals, and while on all of them He has lavished in- 
stinct, man has received few instincts ; but, on the other 
hand, he has received all the gifts of intelligence, or, 
rather, he has been endow T ed with intelligence in the most 
sublime sense of the word. 

After these preliminary remarks, we shall consider 
the main objections which Darwin and. his adherents 
bring against our view, which holds that there is not 
only an essential difference, but also a difference of 
degree, between the intellect of man and that of the 
animal. 



i90 man and beast. 

120. Objection: The Animal also has Passions and 
Affections. 1 — The animal has passions and affections 
like man. It allows itself to be carried away by anger 
and jealousy. The feeling of love in the superior ani- 
mals is no less warm than in man. The fidelity and 
devotion of the dog, the maternal love of the lioness, 
the conjugal love and connubial fidelity of doves and 
love-birds are proverbial. 

Answer. — All this we do not deny ; but we say that the 
causes and motives which produce these effects in man 
are essentially different. In animals they seem similar 
to a certain degree outwardly, but they proceed from 
quite a different source. Man has passions, because 
he has a soul which allows itself to be guided and led 
away by its thoughts and feelings as well as by the sensi- 
tive movements of the body. Our passions arise from 
thoughts and considerations in our mind, but we can 
command, rule, and control them. We can also, if we 
wish, not be passionate, not be affectionate. But the 
animal must be passionate and affectionate; it cannot 
act differently. It must love its master and obey him, 
and it must be grateful to him, just as necessarily as it 
must hate its enemy and persecutor. The animal is pas- 
sionate and affectionate because it is subject to the im- 
pressions of its senses, and is unable to resist them. 

121. Objection: The Animal also has Intelli- 
gence. — Again, we are told that the animal also has 
intelligence — that it reflects, resolves, etc. Young ani- 
mals are more easily caught than older ones ; our hunting 
dogs, for instance, have made progress in certain moral 
qualities, and also, probably, in intelligence. . . . Again, 
animals use instruments; the chimpanzee cracks with 
a stone a wild fruit similar to our walnut. Another 

1 For many of these objections cf. Darwin's " Descent of 
Man," vol. i., pp. 42, 52, 62, y6, 78, 79, etc. 



THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANIMALS. 191 

monkey was taught to raise the cover of a large chest 
with a stick. Monkeys also use stones and canes as 
weapons. It is known that the orang covers himself 
with the leaves of a palm-tree at night; monkeys build 
huts for themselves in the branches of trees. Brehm 
tells us that one of his baboons protected himself against 
the heat of the sun by throwing a straw mat over his 
head. Here we see the beginnings of clothing and archi- 
tecture. 

Answer. — All these alleged examples as proofs of 
active animal intelligence and reflection, of a conscious 
pursuit of an end, and therefore of the choice of the proper 
means, do not prove what they aim. to prove, but simply 
illustrate the instinct of the monkey and the hunting 
dog. Instinct drives the monkey to open eggs, because 
it was taught by previous experience that it contained 
something eatable, just as the fitchew and the weasel suck 
eggs, and even break a small hole in the opposite side, as 
if they understood, the laws of atmospheric pressure. 
When the hunting dog does not allow game to escape, as 
the untrained dog does, but bites it to death, this only 
proves his instinct. Nobody has denied that, in a certain 
sense, animals are capable of development, in the sphere 
of their instinctive impulses, especially that of self-pres- 
ervation. An old hare is more watchful than a young one. 
And why should animals be incapable of development to 
a certain degree? Have they not the capacity of re- 
ceiving sensible impressions and thus gathering experi- 
ence in a certain way? But who would compare this 
application of instinct, which is always confined to 
self-preservation, nourishment, and propagation, with 
man's power of development, which is universal and un- 
limited, like the dominion of his spirit? What sensible 
person ever spoke about progress in bees or ants? But 
when Darwin directs our attention to "the moral quali- 



192 MAN AND BEAST. 

ties of the dog," we reply that the domestic dog has be- 
come what he is only by the guidance of man. The 
peculiar instincts of an animal suggest to thinking man 
the possibility of making use of them for his ends, e.g., 
by training the dog to hunt and watch, the blackbird 
and the bullfinch to whistle certain melodies, the starling 
and the parrot to speak words. In this sense, certainly, 
we can speak of training, but not of development in the 
proper sense of the word ; wherever innate instinct is 
wanting all training will be useless. The wolf will 
never become the companion of man, as the dog or spar- 
row will never whistle songs. 

When the monkey is taught to raise with a stick 
the cover of a large chest, then, because of his peculiar 
imitative instinct, he only apes what he saw man do. 
But how can such an act be used as an argument prov- 
ing that there is in him an active intelligence similar to 
man's, who works for a purpose and uses instruments to 
achieve his ends? As regards the building of huts by 
the anthropoids,- Darwin himself declares that they are 
" probably guided by instinct ;" but when he says : " This 
may easily pass into a wilfully conscious act," we find 
his conclusion altogether illogical. The building of huts 
by monkeys does not even show as much mechanical 
instinct as the building of nests by birds, etc. Again, 
the dog seeks the shade; why should not the baboon 
seek protection under a straw mat against the heat 
of the sun? And when the chimpanzee breaks walnuts 
with a stone it apes what he saw a man doing. But 
why does not the chimpanzee form the stone into an in- 
strument and perfect it? The monkey sees a fire and 
warms himself ; but why did it never think of lighting 
a fire or keeping it up by piling wood thereon, as the 
lowest savage does? 

If the animal had intelligence, properly speaking, it 



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMAL. 193 

would also have general ideas, a conscious aim and 
choice of means ; but it has only instinct, animal intelli- 
gence, that is, a judicious activity without consciousness 
of aim. : The dog can distinguish dogs the one from 
the other," Darwin tells us, " a dog from a man and both 
from a horse." But what does this prove? That the 
dog perceives man as one particular species of beings, 
the horse as another species, and both as species of dif- 
ferent genera? Not at all. The dog distinguishes a 
horse, a man, and a dog as three different individual be- 
ings, but not as three different species. Undoubtedly, 
the dog sees clearly that man and man are more like 
to each other than man and horse; but it does not 
determine the degrees of similarity according to species, 
it does not conceive as species the similarities existing 
within described limits. The dog distinguishes the dog 
from the bitch ; but does it also consciously distinguish 
the male and female sexes? Will it combine the bitch, 
the cow, and woman under the general conception of fe- 
male? the dog, the bull, and man under the general idea 
of male ? Does the bitch know that it is made to be 
impregnated and to bring forth young ones, which it is 
to suckle ? Does it know the causal connection of these 
events, and their temporal succession? Nobody would 
dare to assert it. The bitch follows the unconscious 
instinct of coition, and knows nothing about the sexes. 
If animals had an intelligent soul like man, which could 
be trained, then certainly well-trained dogs would have 
begun to give instructions to their young. 

122. Objection: There is Only a Difference of 
Degree between the Intelligence of Man and of 
the Animal.— As regards speech, the supporters of 
the pithecoid theory will acknowledge only a difference 
of degree between animals and men, not an essential 
difference. Darwin mentions the case of an ape in Par- 
T 3 



I . MAN AND BEAST. 

aguay who, when excited, utters at least six distinct 
sounds, which excite corresponding emotions in other 
apes • and also the still more remarkable fact " that the 
dog ' since being domesticated, has learnt to bark in 
at least four or five distinct tones. ... We have the 
bark of eagerness, as in the chase ; that of anger as 
W ell as growling; the yelp or howl of despair, as when 
shut up; the baying at night; the bark of joy, as when 
starting on a walk with his master; and the very dis- 
tinct one of demand or supplication, as when wishing 
for a door or a window to be opened." Darwin further 
says that only articulate language is peculiar to man, but 
he adds that " it is not the mere articulation which is man s 
distinguishing character, for parrots and other birds 
have this power. The lower animals differ from man 
solely in his almost infinitely larger power of associating 
together the most diversified sounds and ideas, sounds 
with definite ideas; and this obviously depends on the 
high development of his mental powers. ... The tact 
of the higher apes not using their vocal organs for 
speech no doubt depends on their intelligence not hav- 
ing been sufficiently advanced. The possession by 
them of organs which with long continued practice 
might have been used for speech, although not thus 
used is paralleled by the case of many birds, which 
possess organs fitted for singing, though they never 

' ' 1 

S1 Answer— That the language of man is essentially dif- 
ferent from merely emotional sounds (animal language) 
does not need any proof. Just as little as sensations 
rise to ideas, so little do interjections become the 
expressions of ideas if no higher faculty than sensation 
and sensible perception exists. "The *»*£»<* 
speech," says Home Tooke, "is founded on the fall and 
' Darwin, "Descent of Man," vol. i., p. 54- 



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMAL. 1 95 

destruction of the interjection." 1 Max Miiller says: 
"Language begins where interjections cease. There 
are no structural hinderances which forbid animals to 
speak. But the animal will learn to speak only if it 
can become a thinking being. Man speaks, but no ani- 
mal ever gave forth a word. Language is man's Rubi- 
con, which no animal will ever dare to cross. This is 
the answer, based upon facts, which we give to those 
who speak about development, who believe that they 
discover in monkeys at least the beginnings of human 
activity, and who would uphold the possibility that 
man is nothing but a more favored animal, the trium- 
phant victor in the struggle for life. Language is 
something more tangible than a fold in the brain or a 
formation of the skull. It does not admit subtilities, 
and no process of < natural selection' will ever be able to 
find significant words in the songs of birds or in the cries 
of animals." 2 

Frohschammer speaks in the same terms : " Animals 
do not speak, because they are mentally incapable of 
speech, because they are not really capable of thinking. 
Man's power of thought is the cause of his power 
of speech, and not his power of speech the cause of 
his power of thought, as has been asserted, although, 
of course, the power of thought is stimulated and de- 
veloped by speech. For this reason a being incapable 
of thought can never be taught really to speak, although, 
parrot-like, it may imitate words; on the other hand,' 
a being possessing real power of thought, if it fulfils 
even to a slight degree the primary conditions of the 
development of its spiritual powers, will form for itself 
some signs by which it can impart thought, even 

1 Cf. Hettinger, " Christenthum," 6th ed., vol. i. i, p. 433, from 
whom we translate. 

2 Cf. Hettinger, op. at. . 



!q6 man and beast. 

though, like the deaf and dumb, it cannot hear a human 

sound." 1 

But Haeckel, in his " Generelle Morphologie," retorts, 

saying : 

" Birds with highly differentiated gullets and tongues, 
such as parrots, can learn to speak ; that is, they have the 
power of making articulate sounds just as perfectly as 
man. The most important step in the development of 
real men from real apes is the differentiation of the 
o-ullet and to this man owes the power of speech and 
historical tradition." 

"It would be an interesting task," says Dr. Reusch, 
"for a historian to collect the historical traditions of 
their race from the parrots, who, as Haeckel assures us, 
can learn our language as perfectly as a Frenchman can 

learn German." 2 

When Haeckel in his " History of Creation" says, 
" Very many wild tribes can count no further than ten 
or twenty, whereas some clever dogs have been made 
to count up to forty and even beyond sixty, and yet the 
faculty of appreciating number is the beginning of 
mathematics," we suppose he means to imply that dogs 
will probably be able at some time or other to do frac- 
tions and the rule of three. 

123. Objection: the Animal also has Self-con- 
sciousness, etc.— Consciousness, individuality, ab- 
straction, general ideas, belong to man. But can we 
feel sure that an old dog with an excellent memory and 
some power of imagination, as shown by his dreams, 
never reflects on his past pleasures in the chase ? This 
would be a form of consciousness. Dogs certainly 
possess something very like conscience, and this does 
not appear to be wholly the result of fear. A dog, for 

1 " Quarterly Review," vol. cxxxvii. (July, 1874), p- 43- 

2 Reusch, " Bibel und Natur," p. 139. 



ANIMALS AND THE ESTHETIC SENSE. 1 97 

instance, will refrain from stealing in the absence of his 
master. What a strong feeling of inward satisfaction 
must compel a bird, so full of activity, to brood on its 
eggs day after day. . . . The worn-out wife of an 
Australian savage, says Biichner, 1 can hardly make any 
use of abstract words, and is incapable of counting beyond 
four. How little can such a woman prove her con- 
sciousness or reflect on the nature of her existence? 
When my voice awakened a series of old associations in 
the soul of the above-mentioned dog, he must have pre- 
served his spiritual individuality, although every atom 
of his brain had changed probably more than once in 
the course of five years. 

Answer. — When we look more closely at Darwin's 
argument, we see that he did not make a direct attempt 
to ascribe the above qualities to the animal. Every- 
thing we have said thus far speaks against this. That 
a dog has mental pictures of the chase after the " pleas- 
ures of the chase are past" nobody will deny ; but that he 
should make "reflections" on them, like a hunter, who 
likes to tell his hunting stories, Darwin himself would 
not have dared to assert in earnest. Indeed, the 
dog is the same after five years ; but he does not know 
that he is the same. Lastly, if "an Alexander von 
Humboldt is far superior to the worn-out wife of an 
Australian savage," this only proves the educational 
adaptability of human nature on account of its spiritual 
disposition ; but this worn-out woman, when speaking 
at the point of death of a continued, existence in another 
world, is separated from the highest animal by a gulf 
which cannot be bridged. 

124. Objection: the Animal has the ^Esthetic 
Sense. — The sense of beauty does not belong exclusively 
to man. Male birds exhibit their plumage and magnifi- 

Kraft und Stoff," p. 230. 



1 << 



t g8 / MAN AND BEAST. 

cent feathers before the females, while other birds not 
so adorned do nothing of the kind. As women all over 
the world adorn themselves with feathers, the beauty of 
such ornaments is indisputable ; the same is true of the 
charming sounds males utter, which are certainly ad- 
mired by the females. 

Answer.— What do the facts alleged above prove? 
The bird only admires the feathers and the singing of the 
males of its kind, and, besides, all this belongs to the 
sphere of the sexual instinct. Darwin's entire hypothe- 
sis of sexual selection— that is, that the female always 
seeks the more beautiful and stronger male— is without 
foundation. Darwin himself cannot deny this. What 
foundation has such a comparison with the sense of 
beauty in man, who looks not only on what is beautiful 
to the sense, but rises to the domain of ideal beauty? 

125. Objection: the Animal also has Religious 
I DEA s.— We have no proofs of man's aboriginal belief 
in a God. Numerous races have neither the idea of God 
nor a word to express it. Religion and belief in invis- 
ible powers arose at first from dreams, which the savage 
could not distinguish from real events, and thus he came 
to believe in the existence of gods. " The most cour- 
ageous dog," says Vogt, " will show senseless fear in the 
presence of strange appearances, of which his nose can 
give him no warning: the dog is evidently afraid of 
ghosts. Fear of the supernatural, of the unknown, the 
germ of religious ideas, is found developed in a high 
degree in our intelligent domestic animals, the dog and 
the horse ; men only developed these farther, and formed 
them into a system of faith." 

Answer.— Law-givers and priests did not invent the 
belief in a God. Had the belief in a Supreme Being, 
and the desire to know more about Him, not dwelt 
in man, neither law-givers nor priests could have 



THE ANIMAL HAS MORAL SENTIMENTS. 1 99 

spoken at all about a God; and if they had done so, 
nobody would have understood them. No nation or 
tribe has yet been found that had not some idea of 
a Supreme Being. Even the poor Andaman Islanders, 
who were once considered the missing link between 
man and the ape, have ideas about a God which are 
superior to those held by the Romans. Belief in a God 
arisen from dreams ! But cats and dogs also dream 
without converting themselves or getting religion. If 
a man does not know or hear anything about God in a 
wakeful state, how can he dream of Him? For dreams 
will represent to the soul only the sensitive impressions 
of the day. Is it by dreaming that man has arrived at 
the ideas of ghosts and gods? Indeed, only a dreamer 
can make such an assertion. 

126. Objection: the Animal also has Moral 
Sentiments. — The moral sense does not prove an 
essential difference between man and the animal. Hear 
what Vogt has to say : " The cuffs which the old bears 
give to the younger ones show distinctly that animals 
are not devoid of the ideas of parental authority and 
filial obedience, that is, of the fundamental notions of 
human and Christian morality." "Animals," says Dar- 
win, : ' manifestly feel emulation. They love approba- 
tion or praise; and a dog carrying a basket for his 
master exhibits in a high degree self-complacency and 
pride. There can, I think, be no doubt that a dog feels 
shame, as distinct from fear, and something very like 
modesty when begging too often for food. A great dog 
scorns the snarling of a little dog, and this may be 
called magnanimity. Monkeys certainly dislike being 
laughed at, and they sometimes invent imaginary 
offences. . . . The idea of property is common to every 
dog with a bone, and to most or all birds with their nests. 
The social instinct allows the animal to find pleasure in 



200 MAN AND BEAST. 

society. ... It seems to me very probable that every 
animal, if it were only endowed with sharply expressed 
social instincts, would surely obtain a moral sentiment, 
or conscience, as soon as intellectual faculties, like, or 
nearly like, those of man, would have developed them- 
selves." * 

Answer. — Vogt's argument is too ridiculous to de- 
serve an answer. Darwin's arguments are not quite 
clearly stated. We can see that this author is not quite 
sure of the presence of the moral sense in animals. Cer- 
tainly if intellectual faculties "like, or nearly like, those 
of man" could be developed in animals, then animals 
would possess a moral sentiment. But then animals 
would be men and no longer animals. But it may be 
asked: Is it possible to speak of morality, when man is 
nothing but a perfected animal? Morality rests on the 
idea of duty; this presupposes liberty and intelligence. 
The animal is wanting in both. Instead of this, accord- 
ing to Darwin, all morality rests on the "social instinct," 
which rules as public opinion through the gradual de- 
velopment of language. The social instinct in certain 
animals falls in the same category as their instinct of 
self-preservation and propagation. How a moral life, 
conscience, and the sense of duty can develop from 
this is as little conceivable as how love of parents in 
the monkey, economy in the marmot, monogamy in 
storks and deers, etc., can be looked upon as moral, and 
not as merely instinctive actions.' 2 

127. What Savants Say about Darwinism. — In 
conclusion we say, with Dr. Reusch, that it has only been 
with some repugnance that we have discussed the theory 

1 Cf. " Vorlesungen," vol. i'., p. 393- 

2 For a fuller development of all these objections, see Het- 
tinger, "Apologie," vol. i. 1, pp. 416-440; Reusch, " Bibel und 
Natur," pp. 356-385- 



WHAT SAVANTS SAY ABOUT DARWINISM. 201 

of our relationship to the monkey in detail. It is cer- 
tainly depressing to find that such a question can come 
up for discussion towards the end of the nineteenth 
century; but we could not avoid such a discussion. 
These theories are brought forward in popular and 
superficial books and pamphlets, and even newspapers, 
from which the so-called educated people learn their 
wisdom. The poor readers are persuaded, very often 
to their great dismay, that they are dealing with 
the results of the most careful, conscientious, and ex- 
haustive observations and investigations. They believe 
that natural science, which is admitted to be accurate 
science, resting on observations and inductions, is carried 
on in our time with a thoroughness not even dreamed 
of formerly. It has consequently reached the greatest 
results. They believe that this science necessarily leads 
to these conclusions, and that the reader must therefore 
either ignore science or give up the old belief that God 
on the sixth day of the Creation finished the creation 
of the animals, including the ' monkeys, and then 
made man to His image and likeness. There is 
no way by which we can answer such misconceptions, 
and save the honor both of the Bible and of science, 
except by showing what science has really discovered 
and can discover; what is the result of sober, conscien- 
tious investigation, and what, on the other hand, be- 
longs to the realm of airy hypotheses and fantastic 
speculations, which the student will mingle with his 
scientific conclusions only if his fancy runs away with 
his understanding, or if he mixes up his philosoph- 
ical or theological views with his scientific opinions. 
Neither of these is very likely to happen to the leaders 
in science, whether they believe in the Bible or not. 
But the great mass of amateurs, those who have a 
smattering of science, believe in a hodge-podge of the 



202 MAN AND BEAST. 

true and false, of certain and uncertain scientific state- 
ments, of rash hypotheses and philosophical and theo- 
logical opinions. The same mixture of fancy and science 
is found in authors who, like Vogt, Darwin, and Haeckel, 
propagate their atheistic opinions with the zeal of mis- 
sionaries, and, as has been justly said of Haeckel, "use 
scientific facts only as mortar for the stones supplied by 
fancy or by philosophical unbelief." J 

Other earnest men of science protest quite as strongly 
as could any theologian against such misuse of science. 

Thus Aeby says : 

" It is very pleasant to read how the three anthro- 
pomorphous apes attained the human form; how the 
wild ancestors of our race stood tribe against tribe, kind 
against kind; how gradually with increasing civiliza- 
tion they recognized that they were brothers, intermin- 
gled, intercrossed, removed the original difference by 
hybrid forms, and so were slowly but surely brought to 
final unity. But we look in vain for any foundation of 
fact for all this. We know the human type as a soli- 
tary island, from which no bridge leads to the neigh- 
boring land of the mammals. At present there is no 
scientific document, but only the speculations of the 
human spirit, to tell us whether it was torn off from 
that land ages ago, or whether it rose independently 
from the ocean of creation." 2 

Oscar Traas speaks still more strongly: "The idea 
that the human race came from one of these kinds 
of apes is the most insane ever conceived by man 
about the history of man ; it is worthy to be preserved 
in a new edition of the 'History of Human Folly;' 
besides there is no pretence that this absurd idea is 
founded on fact. We may therefore calmly leave the 

1 Retisch, " Bibel und Natur," pp. 280, 281. 

2 Aeby, " Die Schadelformen," p. 90. 



DAWNING OF HEALTHIER VIEWS. 203 

gorilla in the tropical swamps of Lower Guinea, the 
only place on this planet where he is found. The proof 
of man's relationship to this monster has still to be 
discovered." * 

Quatrefages speaks in the same strain. "The idea 
that the apes are our ancestors has caused great sen- 
sation, because it has been defended in the name of 
philosophy and controverted in the name of theology, 
and has therefore been connected with the controversies 
which have only drawn scientists beyond the boundaries 
of a province they ought never to have left. We do not 
pretend to be either theologians or philosophers ; we are 
purely men of science, and, therefore, care only for 
scientific truth. In the name of this truth I must 
acknowledge that natural science knows nothing as yet 
about the origin of man ; but in the name of the same 
truth, I can assert that neither a gorilla, nor an orang- 
outang, nor a chimpanzee, nor a sea-cow, nor a fish, nor 
any other animal, was our ancestor." 

128. Dawning of Healthier Views. — But, thanks 
to a calmer examination of the subject, the day 
begins to dawn when men who were formerly the 
champions of this foolish and infidel doctrine will hold 
quite different views. Only very recently the father of 
modern rationalistic anthropology, Professor Virchow of 
Berlin, made the following annihilating criticism of Dar- 
winism at the "Congress of Anthropology," held in 
Vienna in 1889. He says: "When we were together at 
Innsbruck, twenty years ago, it was just at the time 
when Darwinism held its first victorious progress 
through the world, and when my friend Vogt jumped at 
once with great animation into the ranks of the cham- 
pions of this doctrine. In vain were we hunting for 
these missing links which ought to connect man directly 
1 O. Traas, " Vor der Siindfluth," p. 399. 



204 MAN AND BEAST. 

with the monkey; the primitive man, the proper pro- 
anthropos, has not yet been found. The pro-anthropos 
is generally no subject of discussion for anthropologists. 
The anthropologist may perhaps behold the pro-anthro- 
pos in a dream, but whilst awake he certainly will not 
assert that he approached him very closely. At the 
time in Innsbruck it looked as if it were possible to 
establish the course of descent from monkey to man 
without any difficulty whatsoever. But at present we 
are unable to establish even the descent of the particu- 
lar races from one another. At the present moment we 
can say that among the peoples of ancient times none was 
any nearer to the ape than we are. In our days we can 
say that upon this globe there is not a tribe in the 
human family which is absolutely unknown to us. The 
least known are the nations of the central mountains 
of Malacca; but we know the Fuegeans as well as 
the Esquimaux, the Bushmen, the Polynesians, and 
the Lapps. Yes, we know more of some of these 
tribes than of some of the peoples of Europe. I need 
only remind you of the Albanians. Every existing race 
is human ; none has yet been found to which we could 
point as wholly or partly akin to the ape. Even though 
some show characteristics or forms peculiar to the 
ape — as, for instance, forms of the skull more or 
less analogous to those of the apes — we cannot assert 
positively and truthfully that on this account these 
men look like monkeys. As regards the ancient 
lake-dwellers, I have been able to subject almost all 
the skulls found to a comparative inquiry, and it is 
now certain that we meet differences between various 
tribes, but that there is not a single one among them 
which lies outside of the framework of the races now 
existing. It can be shown most clearly that in the 
course of 5000 years no change of types worth men- 



DAWNING OF HEALTHIER VIEWS. 20$ 

tioning has taken place. If you ask me to-day, Was 
the first man black or white? I must tell you, I do not 

know." 

After this the speaker sums up the results of anthro- 
pological science during the last twenty years, inquiring 
whether retrogression, as many assert, or progress can 
be noted : " Twenty years ago the representatives of 
our science claimed to know a good deal that they did 
in fact not know. To-day we know what we know. 
The only report I can give is to say: We have not 
made any debts, that is, we have not borrowed from 
hypothesis, we need not to go around fearing that 
what we know maybe overthrown. We have prepared 
the ground so that the generation coming after us can 
make full use of the material presented. The recog- 
nition of the government, the sympathy of the people, 
give us the assurance that we shall not want material. To 
settle the anthropology of the races of Europe appears 
to us an end attainable during the next twenty years." 

The above words from the mouth of one whose words 
re-echo in the ears of every rationalist of Europe, yea, 
of the whole world, was the death-blow to Darwin's 
views on the descent of man. 

" Man when he was in honor did not understand : he 
hath been compared to senseless beasts and made like to 
them." ] These words of Holy Scripture we hold up to 
all those who still look upon some animal species as 
their origin and ancestors. Every one may hunt for his 
origin wherever he pleases. We know that our origin 
is from God and in God. This descent is worthy of our 
soul, which is created after God's image and likeness. 

1 Ps. xlviii. 21. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

Infidelity and the state of primitive man.— Man's primitive 
state was not a state of savagery. — His state is one of 
degradation and degeneration. — Savages in Europe during 
the last century.— The Fuegeans. — The Veddahs of Ceylon. 
—An damans. —Hottentots. —Bushmen. —Shameless exagger- 
ations. — A people in the mere natural state discovered 
nowhere. — The paradisiac state and original happiness 
mentioned in the myths of all nations. — Civilization in 
Asia when barbarism prevailed over Europe.— Really pro- 
gressive development possible only through Christianity. — 
Man could not rise by his own powers from the state of 
savagery or from that of a helpless child to higher perfection. 

It were unworthy of God to place man in the world a savage 

or a harmless child.— Only materialists believe this. 

We know the nature and origin of man; we know 
he is the immediate creature of God, and know he is 
composed of a body and a soul. The soul is a substan- 
tial, reasonable, and free principle, essentially distinct 
from the body, independent of matter in its functions ; 
it cannot be the result of a simple biological evolution 
from an animal. 

Man, by virtue of his special creation, holds a dis- 
tinct position in the visible world, because he is a 
reasonable and free being, able to reflect, conceive, 
devise, and create modes of thought, speech, and lan- 
guage; able to pursue, improve, and achieve triumphs 
in every art, in every science, and in every pursuit of 

life; because he is the only being who know r s theprinci- 

206 



INFIDELITY AND THE PRIMITIVE MAN. 207 

pie and essence of things: the true, the beautiful, the 
universal, and the absolute. Such, in substance, are the 
attributes of man, such are the gifts of his Creator, and 
such is the inheritance of the human race, individually 
and collectively, as we have shown in the preceding 

chapters. 

Having proved these propositions, having outlined 
man's inherited and acquired attributes, it now remains 
for us to seek and determine the conditions under which 
man first appeared on the world's stage; the teach- 
ings of faith and science— the truths of one and the 
speculations of the other on the history of primitive 
man and of the primitive races. 

129. Infidelity and the State of Primitive Man.— 
Infidelity makes three assertions which contradict di- 
vine revelation on these subjects. The first two con- 
cern the age and education of man, and the third bears 
on the descent of the human family from a single pair. 
Revelation teaches us that the first man was created 
in a preternatural state, that is, with privileges above 
the strict requirements of his nature. These gratuitous 
gifts comprised— with original justice— immortality, the 
knowledge of all he should know to fulfil his high call- 
ing, exemption from physical (pain, etc.) and moral evil 
or disorder (concupiscence). After a time of faithfully 
fulfilled probation, man was to enter the realms of the 
blessed and enjoy the beatific vision of God. 

We learn that man abused his moral liberty, revolted 
against his Creator, and that spiritual death was the con- 
sequence of his fall. Natural death and all that pre- 
cedes or accompanies it— labor, suffering, struggle for 
life, etc.— were the punishments of man's disobedience. 
Man, in his material life, becomes, thenceforth, similar 
to the other animals. From the preternatural and ex- 
ceptional state to which he had been raised, he fell to 



208 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

the condition of other living beings. Great was his fall, 
and it might well cause him to sink rapidly to the most 
wretched savagery. 

Those who hold that man is descended from an ani- 
mal teach, as a necessary consequence of their doctrine, 
that man originally lived in a barbarous condition, sim- 
ilar to that of the so-called savage races. They say it is 
untrue that the first man and woman were created by 
God in a state of perfection, but declare that at the be- 
ginning they lived in a state of savagery like animals, 
and only after thousands of years their descendants 
raised themselves to their present knowledge, place, and 
power. According to this view, primitive tribes and 
races wandered over forests and plains, hunting and fish- 
ing to supply the common necessaries of life. Their 
habits and ways of living were not much above those of 
animals. Gradually they grouped themselves into fam- 
ilies and tribes for better security ; again they formed com- 
munities for barter, exchange, and trade; gave them- 
selves to a more peaceful, staple, and industrious life; 
tilled the ground, domesticated useful animals ; learned 
trades and industries ; engaged in commerce, and, finally, 
acquired the arts and sciences. 

The same view of primitive man is often brought for- 
ward in a more sentimental way. Writers speak of the 
primitive men as simple and untutored children of 
nature, who dwelt on the earth in a state of childlike 
simplicity. Only gradually their passions awoke, and 
through their passions every evil in the world arose. 
But by their own activity, especially by progressive 
education, they raised themselves to a higher state, 
which unfortunately troubled their happiness more and 
more as they progressed, and gained new ideas and 
wants, new tastes and luxuries, in their progress to civ- 
ilization. Such is Jean J. Rousseau's imaginary picture, 



PRIMITIVE MAN NOT A SAVAGE. 20g 

and he has made great efforts to set it forth in his work,. 
11 The Ideal Man of Nature." 

This opinion is held and believed in by many who 
have not given the subject careful consideration. All 
who accept it, though they reject the descent of man 
from an ape and also the materialistic doctrine of his 
origin, have not grasped the Christian teaching on man's 
creation, or have not the courage to acknowledge it. 
We deplore the state of modern society, which so readily 
accepts so fanciful a hypothesis, with its pernicious prin- 
ciples. It is taught in the public schools, and it is so 
flattering to the vanity of an egotistical people with 
unchristian ideas, that it is believed the true and correct 
view of the original state of the human family — the 
'children of nature." Man, they say, must return to 
; ' mother nature," and was weaned from it by the proc- 
ess of education. 

130. Man's Primitive State Was Not a State of 
Savagery or Childish Innocence. — The hypothesis 
of man's gradual development from a rude state of nature 
contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which teaches 
us that the first man was created in a state of perfection, 
in the image of God, and that he degenerated only 
through sin. 

A number of reasons are at our command which 
show that man did not raise himself to his present per- 
fection from a state of savagery or childish innocence 
and simplicity. 

131. (1) It is Historically False. — To refute this 
error it is necessary to observe that the word savagery 
has been badly defined. Undoubtedly if we accept the 
word savage in its etymological sense of " dweller in the 
woods" (silvaticus) , primitive men may have been sav- 
ages ; for no city existed as yet ; they built them later 
on. Again, if we give to this term the meaning of " not 

1A 



2 io THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

civilized," it is true our first parents and their immediate 
offspring knew neither the benefits nor the inconven- 
iences of what we call civilization in our days, because 
civilization is the result of experiences accumulated 
during centuries ; they knew neither how to read nor to 
write, were ignorant of our sciences ; they could not pos- 
sess them, as they were not known; they knew nothing 
of refinement, luxuries of life, clothing, comfortable 
dwellings, modes of travel, etc., which people possess in 
our days. But if by the word savages we mean men of 
rudimentary intelligence— rude, dirty, inhuman, like the 
people we call savages now— then nothing is further from 
the truth, and nothing rests on a weaker foundation 
than the assertion that primitive man was a savage. ^ 

The vestiges of former civilization in semi-civilized 
countries to-day are sufficient to show this, and if we 
study the history of mankind we find that, properly 
speaking, there was neither a primitive nor a nat- 
ural man. Man degraded himself by plunging into 
gross sensuality and living like a brute. When he lost 
his moral nature, his animal propensities had no check. 
To eat, drink, propagate his kind, and satisfy his pas- 
sions, was the result of this double need. Man, when 
not completely idle,either gives himself up to the excesses 
of foolish pleasure, or, perhaps, goes howling about, kills 
;and eats with relish his fellow-man. Can such a man 
be called a natural man? Is not this state, on the con- 
trary, what is most opposed to human nature? 

132. (2) The Savage State Is a State of Degra- 
dation and Degeneration.— The savage state is 
really a state of degradation and degeneration— not the 
state of natural man such as he went forth from the 
hands of God. The barbarism and fierceness of savage 
nature are not proofs, as is often asserted, that the 
character and condition of a savage are those of primi- 



THE SAVAGE STATE. 211 

tive men. In fact, in the midst of the most civilized 
nations there are men who are real savages by their in- 
stincts, their habits, and their morals. History tells us 
of a people who, during the last century, was divided into 
different tribes or families, and was governed by savage 
chiefs. They occupied themselves with raising herds 
of cattle, and signalized themselves by stealing, plunder- 
ing, carrying off men and children in order to sell them 
as slaves. These cruel barbarians, grossly ignorant, a 
prey to the darkest superstitions, were hardly ac- 
quainted with the first principles of agriculture; they 
scratched the ground with a piece of bent wood instead 
of a plough ; for harrow, they tied fagots to the tail of 
an unharnessed horse. Their nourishment, consisting 
chiefly of oatmeal and milk, was mixed with the blood 
drawn from a living cow. When they ate more dainty 
dishes they prepared them in a really disgusting and dirty 
manner; they boiled the beef with its skin, and roasted 
the bird with its feathers ; and with all this they joined 
demoralizing habits unknown even to our redskins. 
These tribes or barbarous clans were no other than the 
Scotch, leading this life when their aristocracy showed 
much brilliancy in philosophy, science, and politics. 1 

With regard to cruelty and barbarity, who does not 
know that during the great French Revolution, the pe- 
riod which contemporaries have called "the reign of 
monsters," there arose all of a sudden, in different parts 
of the country, bands of wretches, plunderers, and assas- 
sins, who in atrocity did not fall below the most bar- 
barous tribes? The men of Meillard, in the first days of 
September, 1792, strangled, at Carmes, in the Abbey of 
La Force, innocent persons who had never done them 

1 Cf. Lecky, " History of England in the Eighteenth Century," 
2ded., London, 1 879-1 882, vol. ii.,p. 36; Max Miiller, " The Savage 
in the Nineteenth Century," 1885, pp. 113, 114. 



2 12 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

the least harm, yea, whom they did not even know. 
This is one example out of thousands of the bloody hor- 
rors of the Revolution. Such cool savagery and vile 
cupidity show plainly that there are savages in the midst 
of civilized and polished nations and communities. The 
men to whom materialists applied the name savages are 
no more the types of primitive men than are the Car- 
riers, Meillards, Robespierres, Lebons, and many others, 
who committed cruel excesses at the end of the last 
century. Men of their stamp and views endeavor to 
deny or palliate these atrocities, but they remain, his- 
torical facts, and show the utter degradation and cruelty 
to which some men yield when deprived of the benign 
influence of morality and religion. 

The traditional history of humanity, in the opinion of 
Dr. Ray Lankaster, furnishes numerous examples of a 
tendency toward degeneration ; states of higher civiliza- 
tion have retrograded to make room for inferior and 
degenerated states. There was a time when the doctrine 
which represented the savage human races as degener- 
ated descendants of superior and civilized tribes, was 
generally admitted. The study of the morals, arts, and 
religious beliefs of savages has shown how erroneous this 
too general and hurried generalization was. However, 
it is undeniable that many savage races now existing 
descend from ancestors that possessed comparatively a 
very high and developed civilization. In support of this 
statement we can quote the American Indians, the mod- 
ern Egyptians, and even the heirs of the great Oriental 
monarchies of antiquity. Although the hypothesis of 
universal degeneration applied to the savage races is 
liable to objections, nevertheless it is true that degen- 
eration is a great help to us in interpreting the actual 
state of many barbarous tribes, such as the Fuegeans, 
the Bushmen, and even the Australians. Ascertained 



THE FUEGEANS. 213 

facts tend to prove their descent from ancestors more 
civilized than they are themselves. 1 

133. The Fuegeans.— We see that Mr. Lankaster's 
opinion of the Fuegeans is decisive. Darwin regarded 
them as the lowest of mankind. He considered them 
almost inferior to irrational animals. Those he saw he 
compares to the devils who appear on the stage in cer- 
tain operas like the " Freischiitz. " " At the sight of such 
men," he says, "one can hardly believe that they are 
creatures similar to us, and that they inhabit the same 
world. Their language, according to the idea we have 
of a language, scarcely deserves the name of articula- 
tion. Captain Cook compared it to the noise a man 
makes when he coughs in order to clear his throat, but 
certainly no European having trouble with his throat 
ever produced such harsh, guttural, clicking sounds." 2 

Now it is precisely their language that furnishes 
proof of the ancient civilization of the Fuegeans. One 
of their dialects, the Jagan, contains no less than 
30,000 words. That is more than the English language 
could boast of in the sixteenth century; more than Dar- 
win used in all his works. As regards the sound, it is 
certainly not inferior to our English language. " Le 

1 Cf. Ray Lankaster (Darwinist) on Degeneration. See lecture 
before the British Association at Sheffield, August 22, 1879. 

Evidently we must distinguish degrees in degeneration as well 
as in civilization. We do not wish to maintain that the ances- 
tors of savages had attained a high degree of civilization. 

"Journal of Researches into Geology and Natural History," 
London, vii., 1840. 

These assertions of Darwin are gr-eatly exaggerated as regards 
the physical aspect of the Fuegeans. Darwin publicly mocked 
the missionaries who undertook the conversion of " these canni- 
bals and plunderers. " Some years afterward converted Fuegeans 
raised over 100,000 francs to assist the shipwrecked. Cf. G. Bove, 
' Viaggio alia Patagonia ed alia Terra de Fuoco," in the " Nuovo 
Antologia," Dec, 1882, pp.778, 801, 



2i 4 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

parole di quella sono dolci, piacevole, piene di vocale-" 
says Giacomo Bove, who visited them in 1882. Such a 
language is the wreck of an ancient civilization. 

" The state of degeneration in which the Fuegeans 
are found contrasts singularly with the richness of their 
language, which proves that we have to attribute to this 
people an original civilization much higher than their 
actual condition. The Jagan language is undoubtedly 
one of the most ancient and purest. It is very com- 
plete in its grammar and vocabulary. The latter con- 
tains about 30,000 words, which number can even be 
increased on account of the agglutinative character of 
the language. The verbs and pronouns are very numer- 
ous, and supply in a certain manner the poverty of ad- 
verbs and prepositions. The Jagan language differs in a 
perceptible manner from that of their neighbors, the 
Alacaluf and the Ona, of which the words are harsh, 
guttural, and filled with consonants. The richness of 
the language gives to the Fuegeans a facility of surpris- 
ing elocution. Hundreds of times in the wigwam 
have I heard and seen old men discourse for hours with- 
out stopping." l 

The same can be said about the Veddahs of Ceylon, who 
are now savages of the most debased type. They are 
believed for good reasons, furnished by their vocabu- 
lary, to be degenerate descendants of the tribes who 
brought Aryan civilization to the plains of Hindostan. 2 
"They make themselves understood," says Sir E. Ten- 
nent, "by signs, grimaces, and guttural sounds, which 

1 G. Bove, op. cit, p. 800. 

2 Rawlinson, " Origin of Nations," p. 5. 

The Vedic hymns, which their Sanscrit-speaking forefathers 
composed, are written in a language far older than the Greek of 
Homer, and stamps them as a cultivated and progressive race. 
Andrews, " India and Her Neighbors," p. 4- 



RELIGIOUS NOTIONS OF SAVAGE PEOPLES. 2 1 5, 

have little resemblance to definite words or language in 
general." Yet Max Muller writes of this very same 
race : " More than one-half of the words used by them 
are mere corruptions of Sanscrit. Their very name is 
the Sanscrit for 'huntsmen.' If at present they are 
standing very low in the scale of humanity, there was 
a time when they stood higher. Nay, with regard to 
language, if not in blood, they may possibly prove to be 
distant cousins of Plato, Newton, and Goethe." * 

134. (3) The Religious Notions of Savage Peo- 
ples. — The religious notions of certain savage peoples 
are so lofty that we can hardly suppose that they them- 
selves have invented them. The Andamans, for in- 
stance, are a race of the Andaman Islands, hardly known 
by name even in the last half century, a small people of 
negro blood, who hunt and fish, live in huts made of 
stakes or branches. These creatures have been repre- 
sented as forming the "missing link " between man and 
the ape, and yet they have a higher conception of the 
divinity than the polished Greeks and Romans. Mr. 
Man, who visited them, sums up their belief in Puluga, 
the good God, in the following manner: 

" (1.) Although he resembles the fire, he is neverthe- 
less invisible. (2.) He has never been born, and is im- 
mortal. (3.) Through him the world was created; all 
animate and inanimate objects, except the pleasures of 
evil. (4.) He is omniscient by day, and even knows the 
thoughts of the heart. (5.) He becomes angry when ^ 
one commits certain sins, whilst he is full of pity for 
those who are in pain and anxiety, and even sometimes 
deigns himself to assist them. (6.) It is he who judges 
all the souls after death and passes sentence on them. 
The hope to escape the torments of Jereg-lar mugo (a 

1 Max Miiller, " Chips," vol. iv., p. 360. 



2 i6 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

kind of purgatory) exercises a great influence on these 
islanders in the present life." ' 

135. (4) Savage Races the Victims of Wars 
and Invasions. — The Duke of Argyle observes that 
most inferior races live on the extremities of continents 
or at the bottom of sacks ; not because they are abo- 
riginal, but because they have been driven there by 
stronger races than they : they are the victims of Avars 
and invasions. Hence their degraded and miserable 
character. The Esquimaux have not of their own 
accord gone to dwell in the northern regions under tents 
of snow any more than the Fuegeans to Cape Horn; 
they were constrained to do so by brutal force, which 
drove them away from more temperate zones, whether 
we consider them as a detached branch of the great 
American ethnical tree, or whether they were at first 
Siberian nomads. 2 

Certainly, only dire necessity could have forced 
these men to take up their abode in such terrible regions, 
if the warm and fertile lands of happier climates 
had been open to them. Indeed, even in the Arctic 
regions tribal feuds drive the weaker still further north. 
Thus Admiral Osborne informs us that a tribe wander- 
ing along the extreme northern edge of the Siberian 
coast drove another tribe across the frozen sea to an 
island lying so far north that only its mountain-tops 
could be occasionally seen from the Siberian headlands. 3 
" Tierra del Fuego," says Darwin, the man who placed 
its inhabitants on the lowest step of the human ladder, 
" is a broken mass of wild rocks, lofty hills, and useless 

1 E. H. Man, " On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman 
Islands," in the "Journal of Anthropology," vol. xii., 1882, p. 157. 

2 " The Unity of Nature," London, 1884, p. 504. 

3 " Times," Dec. 30, 1867 ; cf. C. Geikie, " Hours with the Bible," 
vol. i., p. 165. 



THE HOTTENTOTS AND BUSHMEN. 21 J 

forests, and these are viewed through mists and endless 
storms. The habitable land is reduced to the stones of 
the beach. The people are compelled to wander un- 
ceasingly from, spot to spot in search for food, and so 
steep is the coast that they can only move about in 
their wretched canoes." ! 

" How could tribes," adds Geikie, "in such a land as 
the uttermost north, amidst eternal ice, be anything but 
degraded? But it cannot surely be said that they were 
created at first where we find them, and it is hard to 
believe that they have not become greatly lower than 
their ancestors who came from happier lands." 2 

136. The Hottentots and Bushmen. — In Africa 
the most degraded races are the Hottentots and Bush- 
men. Their general characteristics are described as 
follows : 

" They have a peculiar livid and yellow face, a narrow 
forehead, projecting cheek bones, a pointed chin, the 
head covered with crisp, tufted hair, a body of medium 
height and rather tough and strong, small hands and 
feet. They are skilled in horsemanship, intelligent and 
courageous; they are of a mild disposition, but given to 
lying and stealing, drunkenness and sensuality. Their 
religious notions are centred in a Supreme Being, 
which is little else than a deified chieftain. They be- 
lieve in a future state or life, and fear the return of 
spirits. As an example of their intellectual capacity 
may be mentioned the Hottentot Andreas Stofnes, who 
was master of several languages, and could make a good 
speech in English. The Hottentot language has four 
dialects. The Nama dialect is spoken by the Namaquas, 
northwest of Cape Colony, and also by the Damaras, north 

1 Darwin's " Voyage of a Naturalist," p. 216; cf. C. Geikie,^. 
cit., p. 166. 

2 C. Geikie, " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., p. 166. 



2i8 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

of them, but it does not seem to be their original tongue. 
It is the oldest, purest dialect, but like the speech of all 
savages, it may be subdivided into several sub-dialects, 
according to tribes, and even families. The Hottentot 
language is, generally speaking, of monosyllabic struc- 
ture. It is rich in diphthongs and remarkably delicate 
in the use of inflectional final sounds, which contrast 
strangely with the constantly recurring clicking sounds. 
The principal occupation of the Hottentots and Bush- 
men is that of guarding their herds ; they live on milk 
and ignore agriculture. The most important piece of 
his dress is a sheep's skin, or the skin of a wild kross. 
The second piece consists of a small skin apron, which 
he ties around the loins." 1 

The foregoing facts show what exaggerations the 
human mind can indulge in when there is question of the 
primitive condition of man, and of coining arguments 
against revelation and the belief in a Supreme Being. 
Nott and Gliddon in their " Types of Mankind " 2 assure us 
that these two races are hardly to be distinguished mor- 
ally and physically from the orang-outang. " The Hot- 
tentots and Bushmen, the latter in particular, they say, 
are but little removed in both moral and physical char- 
acters from the orang-outang. A man must be blind 
not to be struck by similitudes between some of the 
lower races of mankind, viewed as connecting links 
in the animal kingdom ; nor can it be rationally affirmed 
that the orang-outang and chimpanzee are more widely 
separated from certain African and Oceanic negroes than 
are the latter from the Teutonic or Pelasgian types." 



»» 3 



1 Cf. Tudall, " Grammar and Vocabulary of the Namaqua Hot- 
tentot Language ; " Black, " Comparative Grammar of the South 
African Languages." 2 Philadelphia, 1854. 

3 Max Miiller, " The Savage in the Nineteenth Century," pp. 
182, 183. 



THE HOTTENTOTS AND BUSHMEN. 219 

"This," says an unprejudiced author, M. Waitz, "is a 
shameless exaggeration, which, inspired by the interest 
of merchants and slaveholders, can find belief only in 
America." ' Nott and Gliddon forgot that between the 
most perfect ape and the most degraded man the faculty 
of reasoning establishes a great gap. Elisee Reclus has 
shown that the Andaman, the Khonds of Bengal, and 
the Nefours of New Guinea have been calumniated and 
misrepresented. 2 However this may be, the study of 
savage races has at least had one advantage : it proves 
that natural man is not the innocent and virtuous creat- 
ure which J. J. Rousseau had as his ideal, and in which 
the eighteenth-century rationalists believed ; on the con- 
trary, he is usually cruel, wicked, and unnatural. Nor 
is he a mere animal hardly risen from the depths of 
bestiality, as evolutionists imagine in our days; he is 
a man in the full sense of the word. The savage, there- 
fore, is and remains a man from his birth. Savages are 
not animal men, into whom the man must first be instilled 
by education, but men who do not till the ground, and live 
only by what nature produces with'out their assistance. . . 
Although they may not be humane, they are human. 3 
But far from rising when abandoned to himself, he grad- 
ually sinks deeper and deeper into the abyss of misery 
and degradation. By bringing civilization to him from 
the outside, we can insert on this crude plant a graft 
which will grow, bloom, and bear good fruit. 

" Not everything in the savage is savage," says an old 
missionary. 4 The savage is altogether uncultivated, and 

1 " Anthropologic der Naturvolker," vol. i., p. 105. 

2 " Revue Internationale des Sciences Biologiques," Oct. 20, 
1883, Feb., July, 1884. M.Maury states that they have exag- 
gerated the brutishness of the Hottentot race. Cf. " La Terre 
et l'Homme," p. 411. 

3 J. G. Miiller, " Geschichte der Amerikanischen Religionen," p. 
333. 4 W. Schneider, "Die Naturvolker," 1885, vol. i., p. 4. 



220 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

when he has a little education he shows that he is sus- 
ceptible of cultivation more or less, and thus becomes 
similar to us in everything. Our American Indians fur- 
nish proof of this statement. The savage is not a primi- 
tive man, but a man who has partly retrograded and partly 
progressed and partly remained stationary. Therefore, 
as regards the savage man, his condition is degraded and 
degenerate, but not the condition in which he came forth 
from the hands of God. He is susceptible of progress, 
and indeed has progressed immediately under the teach- 
ing of civilized races. 1 

13;. (5) Nowhere is there a People in a Pure 
State of Nature. — A sentimental enthusiast may 
imagine primitive man dwelling in virgin forests, free 
from care and crime, passing his days at ease, and living 
on fruits and other productions of bountiful nature, eating 
game at times of feasting and rejoicing. No such men 
have ever existed, if we consult history; on the con- 
trary, all nations before their conversion to Christianity 
were more or less degraded and degenerate by habits of 
indolence, drunkenness, immorality, and kindred vices. 
They were reduced in power and population, their demor- 
alizing customs preyed on the vitals of their social and 
industrial resources, and doubtless they would have grad- 
ually perished without the blessings of Christianity. 
Therefore the natural man, as Rousseau and the apos- 
tles of materialism picture him, is a phantasm and an 
illusion without past or present reality. 

Of some ancient nations, like the Greeks and Romans, 
the Chinese and Japanese, we know the history; we can 
trace their rise and development. The Romans obtained 
their education from the Greeks, the Greeks from the 
Phoenicians and Egyptians, the latter, as well as the 
Chinese and Japanese, from other Oriental peoples. 
1 Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., p. 448. 



THE "GOLDEN AGE." 22 1 



The races found in the so-called state of nature were 
degenerate, showed their malicious and animal propen- 
sities, and every form of immorality and vice, when they 
came in contact with Europeans. 

138. (6) All Nations Speak of a " Golden Age." — 
All nations which have left traces of their existence 
have also left records of their former greatness or of some 
past state of prosperity and development, the enjoy- 
ment of Elysian pleasures and of intimate relations with 
the gods. The idea that they have passed from a state 
of nature to progressive development, is foreign to them 
all. Backward, not forward, do they turn their eyes. 
Only one nation looked faithfully and hopefully towards 
the future — the JeAvs who hoped for a Messias to 
come — and inasmuch as this hope was known to Pagan 
nations, the Pagans shared the belief of the Jews. The 
longing of the Gentiles was after the " golden age ' 
which formerly reigned upon earth, and they strove to 
bring it back by penance and reconciliation with their 
gods. This was the faith of the Greeks, the Romans, 
the Germans, and the Hindoos. 

The Elysian state — the original happy condition of 
man — is found in the mythology of all ancient nations. 
According to the Persians, YimaVivangh vat's son reigned 
on the earth, which was free from all evil during the 
golden age. At that time there was no frost or ex- 
cessive heat, no darkness or death, no wars or discord ; 
fruits, flowers, and the bearded corn were provided by 
bountiful nature without cultivation ; from veins in the 
valleys flowed milk and nectar, and honey exuded from 
the pores of the oak; the western winds maintained 
eternal spring and moisture for vegetation, and the birds 
made vocal every branch and spray. AtOrrnuzd's com- 
mand, Yima built a paradise, in which he placed the 
germs of all things and select men ; here death and cor- 



222 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

ruption never entered, here dwelt eternal life and light, 
and glorious existence. 1 

Hindoo tradition tells of a paradisiac mountain — 
Meru. It is adorned with beautiful flowers ; clear brooks 
and song of birds are heard in all directions; four large 
glittering streams, like sheets of silver, flow from it to- 
wards the four points of heaven ; on its summit is the 
dwelling of Siva and Indra, with whom the blessed live. 
There the tree of immortality grows — the tree Pariyata, 
brought from heaven upon earth by Krishna, with its 
celestial flowers and sweet fruits — and drives away 
hunger, thirst, disease, old age, etc. 2 

According to the religion of Lama or of the Calmucks, 
men in the first age of the world lived 80,000 years, in a 
state of happiness and holiness. A plant, fair to view and 
sweet like honey, sprang up from the ground ; a greedy 
man tasted of it and made others acquainted with its 
sweetness. A sense of shame arose within them ; they 
saw their nudity, and made for themselves coverings 
from the leaves of trees. Their age and size decreased ; 
virtue fled and all kinds of vice prevailed. 3 

The Elysian state of Thibetan mythology was one of 
perfection and spirituality ; but the desire to eat of the 
sweet herb schima put an end to that happy state. 
Shame seized the fallen ; jealousy, discord, stealing, 
lying, murder, adultery, and other vices followed. 
They brought the people to a state of social degrada- 
tion and moral turpitude. 4 

The paradise of the Chinese is situated in the Kuen- 

1 D6llinger, " Heidenthum tmd Judenthum," p. 368; Liicken, 
" Mythologie," p. 80; Bratm, " Ueber die Paradiessagen," in " Aus- 

land," 1862. 

2 "Asiatic Journal, "vol. i.,p. 321; Ritter, " Asia," vol. i., p. 7; cf. 
Strabo, vol. xv., p. 250; Bohlen, " Das alte Indien," vol. L, p. i2seq. 

3 Standlein, " Archiv fiir Kirchengeschichte," vol. i., p. 14. 

4 Ibid., p. 15. 



THE "GOLDEN AGE. 223 

Ltm and Thian Shan mountains. In the midst is a gar- 
den ; there arises the source of immortality ; those who 
drink of its waters will never die ; it divides itself into 
four streams, and from this garden life has gone forth 

and grown. 1 

The Greek myths are remotely parallel. Herodotus 
describes the primitive state as one free from toil, sick- 
ness, and all kinds of evil ; mortals were content with 
their easily-obtained sustenance, and happy in mind 
and void of care or crime. But Prometheus deceived 
Zeus by stealing fire from heaven ; the latter, in order 
to punish him, sent a beautiful woman, Pandora, the 
first mortal female, according to Hesiod. Her, Prome- 
theus accepted as a gift ; she had with her a vessel in 
which all sorts of misery had been put ; out of curiosity 
she opened the vessel, and out flew all evil in abundance, 
filling the whole earth; hope alone remained at the 

bottom. 2 

The garden of the Hesperides was situated in the 
Atlas. In it was a wonderful tree bearing golden fruit, 
protected by walls, with a dragon watching its entrance. 
In it dwell the pious and blessed primitive men— the 
Atlantiades or Hyperboreans— who, under perpetual sun- 
shine and in a charming climate, know no sickness, sor- 
row, discord, nor early death; there they pass away their 
time in peace and pleasure, and are called the long 

lived. 3 

As regards our primitive ancestors, Plato tells us that 
God was their keeper. . . . They had plenty of fruit 
and other productions without cultivation; the earth 

1 " Memoires concernant les Chinois," vol. i., p. 106; Windisch- 
mann, " Die Philosophic im Fortgange der Weltgeschichte," vol. 
i., p. 206. 

2 " Opera et Dies," 40-105. 

3 Diodorus, in., 54; Pliny, " Historia Naturalis," bk. iv., p. 12. 



224 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

bountifully provided for all their needs. Naked and with- 
out tents, they lived under the vaulted heavens; the 
mildness of the seasons, the soft, velvety grass, afforded 
them comfort and resting-places day and night. Among 
the animals none were wild, none devoured one another; 
no war or discord disturbed their happiness. 1 

Such was the mode of life under Kronos Dikarchos, 
the peripatetic. These first men who stood nearest to 
the gods enjoyed the greatest happiness; on that 
account it was justly called the " golden age." 2 Ovid 
speaks in the same strain : 

The golden age was first, when man yet new 
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew, 
And with a native bent did good pursue; 
Unforced by punishment, unawed by fear, 
His words were simple and his soul sincere. 

We find the same happiness, peace, and virtue reign- 
ing among primitive men in Chinese traditions. All over 
the land everything grew beautifully and spontaneously ; 
animals pastured in large herds on the broad savannas ; 
fruits of all kinds grew without cultivation ; man prac- 
tised virtue, lived in innocence, and for this nothing 
could harm nor bring death to him. 3 

The Hindoos speak about the four ages of the world. 
The first was the age of happiness and virtue, but 
through excesses many fell into vanity; Zeus, hating 
this state of affairs, destroyed everything and assigned 
to them a life of pain. 4 According to the Zend doctrine, 
Ormuzd reigned alone in the first age. The first age he 
created was an age of pleasantness and abundance. 

1 " Politica," p. 217. 

2 Cf. Varro, " De ReRustica," bk. i., 2; Euseb., " Pra&paratio 

Evangelica," i., 8; xii., 13. 

3 Liiken, " Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts," p. 90. 

4 "Strabo," xv., 8. 



BARBARISM AND CIVILIZATION. 225 

There reigned Jemshid, the first king; he and the first 
man adored Horn (the tree of life), and took therefrom 
as much as they pleased. Only when Ahriman entered 
the kingdom of light did he bring death to the first men. 1 
Again, the faith of the Babylonians points to an Elys- 
ian state, as is attested by the evidence of recent discov- 
eries. According to their belief, primitive men were 
pure and beautiful in form. 2 The tree of life is repre- 
sented on an ancient Babylonian seal ; on the obverse 
side a man and woman are seated, each with hand out- 
stretched to take the tempting fruit. Behind the female 
figure there rises at full length the form of a serpent 
in a seductive attitude. This figure is clearly sugges- 
tive of the history of the fall of man as related in the 
book of Genesis. It is frequently found on gems and 
on the walls of Assyrian palaces and temples. 3 

The Egyptian paradise is both an island and a steep 
mountain, where Osiris was born. Here were fountains 
which poured forth their streams towards all parts of 
the world, and trees with perpetual blossoms and fruits. 
With Osiris dwell the Makrobians; here he produces 
wine of rich flavor, and his sister and wife, Isis, wheat. 4 
139. (7) Barbarism in Europe and Civilization 
in Asiatic Countries.— The fact is that during the 
ages when extreme barbarism prevailed over Europe 
civilization existed in Asiatic countries as an inheritance 
from an earlier period. Past and present archaeologi- 
cal discoveries prove this. Among the many grand 
monuments of early days we need only mention the 
palace of King Sargon at Khorsabad. There is nothing 

1 Plutarch, " De Iside et Osiri," 47 ; Zend, " Avesta," hi., 68. 

2 George Smith, i., 6. 

3 Delitzch, " Supplement to Smith's Chaldean Genesis," p. 30, 

4 Diodor., i., 14 seq. iii., 68 ; cf. Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. ii.„ 
1, p. 366, seq. 

15 



226 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

like it in the world to-day. A person must read the 
descriptions which Kaulen and Rawlinson give of it 
in order to get an idea of its vastness and grandeur. If 
primitive men were so degraded as to be but little 
removed from the animal, as Sir John Lubbock and 
others state, who planned, designed, constructed, and 
adorned these ancient palaces, temples, and monuments? 
Surely some Prometheus must have brought them the 
divine 'spark from heaven, or their calumniators must be 

stricken with blindness. 

The Egyptian pyramids existed 3000 years before 
Christ,' that is, 5000 years ago there was a civilization 
which produced marvels of architecture which excite the 
admiration of architects and travellers in our progressive 
ao-e To illustrate the stupendous works of art which 
came from the brain and hands of those so-called 
degraded savages,-to raise a structure like the Great 
Pyramid, 746 feet square at the base, rising to a height 
of 450 feet, required the labor of relays of men number- 
ing in all 11,000,000 for thirty years!' To put it m 
another way : a structure which covers over twelve square 
acres, contains 90,000,000 cubic feet of masonry and 
weighs 6,316,000 tons, 3 implies an earlier civilization, of 
which it is the crowning triumph. This becomes still 
more certain when we find it is perfectly square, the sides 
being equal and the angles right angles; that the four 
sockets in which the first four stones of the corners rest 
are exactly on the same level ; that the direction of the 
sides is true to the four cardinal points, and that the 
vertical height of the pyramid bears the same propor- 
tion to its circumference at the base as the radius of a 

' Chabas gives the date of the pyramids at 3300 B.C. ; Lepsius 
and Ebers at 3100 and 3000, respectively. 
2 Herodotus, ii., 124. 
3 " English Cyclopedia," article " Egypt." 



ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS. 227 

circle does to its circumference. 1 Not only are these 
measures, angles, and levels accurate to the eye, but the 
best modern instruments can scarcely detect the slightest 
error. The workmanship of the interior chambers is no 
less wonderful, for the passages and chambers are lined 
with huge blocks of granite, polished to the highest 
degree, and fitted into each other with the greatest 
accuracy. 2 Such architecture, surely, points back, not to 
utter degradation, but to a civilization probably older 
than the Flood. 

140. Archaeological Monuments in America also 
Prove a Higher Civilization. — The colossal buildings 
found in America, especially in .Peru, Mexico, on the 
Mississippi and Ohio rivers, when these countries were 
discovered by the Europeans, also prove that there ex- 
isted in America a higher civilization than the present 
races or the supposed aboriginal Indians can account 
for by tradition. 

"The distinguishing characteristics," says Geikie, "of 
the corn plants, such as oats, wheat, barley, rice, maize, 
etc., seem in the same way to point to a very different 
condition from 'utter degradation,' as that of our first 
parents. Like the fruit trees and many of the existing 
animals, they make their appearance on the earth with 
man, and are entirely unknown in earlier ages. More- 
over, while the primitive types of all other esculent 
plants are still to be found in this or other countries, 
those of the corn plants are utterly unknown. Corn has 
never been met with except as a cultivated plant. It is 
found in the wrappings of the Egyptian mummies, and 
in the charred remains of the Swiss Lake dwellings, but 

1 Piazzi Smith, "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid." 
Prof. Smith devoted many months to these measurements, etc., 
using the best instruments. 

2 Birch, " Egypt," i., p. 35 ; Wallace, " Tropical Nature," p. 299. 



228 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

never apart from its cultivation by man. It cannot grow 
spontaneously, and is never, like other plants, self-sown 
and self-spread. If not cultivated, it soon disappears 
and grows extinct. It needs human labor to perpetuate 
it, and seems to have been given us by God, as it is, to 
stimulate our industry and reward it. . . . Given by 
God to our first parents, the grain plants secured a 
transcendant blessing for all their offspring on condition 
of steady industry in their cultivation, but such a gift 
implies a condition far removed from Sir John Lub- 
bock's 'utter degradation.' " * 

141. (8) A Development to a Higher Culture 
Possible only through Christianity.— It is foolish 
and proves a want of reflection to speak of a progressive 
development of nations through their own efforts. A 
progressive development of a people to a higher culture 
is conceivable and possible only through Christianity. 
Although some countries, like the Chinese and Japanese, 
for instance, developed great skill in the domain of art 
and science, still we do not find the least progress in 
their moral condition. Since thousands of years, these 
countries have not acquired one new moral or religious 
truth ; still, this alone can be called true progress. They 
are an immoral and thoroughly corrupt people, as is 
borne out by the accounts of travellers and missionaries. 

" It has been proven again and again that the spirit 
of man does not naturally carry within itself a tendency 
towards progress and development. The modern ideal- 
istic doctrine, necessary self-development of the human 
mind from within, is not logical; nay, it is not even 
a possible opinion; it is a creation of the imagination, 
which natters conceited man, while he sneers at the 
facts of the history of culture. Certainly it is the in- 
telligent activity of man which produces and main- 
1 C. Geikie, " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., p. 168, scq. 



MAN CREATED IN RELATIVE PERFECTION. 229 

tains civilization, but this intelligent activity does not 
spring from itself, does not move forward of itself, is 
not the function of our mind, but is the activity of indi- 
viduals living in society, reacting on one another, created 
through the surroundings in which they are placed, 
nourished and sustained through the experience of his- 
torical events which influence them." * 

As we know that mechanical motion is by no means a 
quality of matter, our reason tells us that progress is by 
no means a quality of the mind. The history of all the 
nations in antiquity, as well as in modern times, attests 
this fact very clearly. Those which show apathy to the 
moral injunctions of Christianity or ignore its teachings 
altogether, rot and perish, for the Word of God is the 
life of a people. 

142. (9) Man Created in a State of Relative 
Perfection. — It is inconceivable that the human mind 
could have raised itself from a savage state, or from that 
of innocence, to a higher perfection without a cer- 
tain education. Man must have been created in a state 
of relative perfection, otherwise he would have per- 
ished. When Holy Scripture tells us that the first man 
went forth from the hands of God perfect and in the 
height and fulness of life, we must admit that, consider- 
ing simply his human nature, God could not create man 
in any other condition, if the preservation and propaga- 
tion of his species was the will of the Creator. Dr. Daw- 
son and many others maintain that all the evidence we 
have is in favor of the theory that the first of any species 
were exceptionally perfect, and that natural selection, 
acting under the pressure of a fearful struggle for exist- 
ence, has produced deterioration and not development. 

A created being is continually in need of being up- 
held in existence by the Creator. Place a child in the 
1 Waitz, " Anthropologic der Naturvolker," p. 474. 



230 THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 

woods, or several together, and see what will become of 
them. Man is born more helpless than is the young of 
any animal. When an animal is placed on the earth it 
possesses the instinct of its species. Instinct in its 
sphere is far more perfect and unerring than human in- 
telligence; it makes no mistakes, because determined by 
structure. Intelligent conduct is self-determined, and 
becomes wise by individual experience ; instinctive con- 
duct is predetermined in wisdom by brain structure. 
A child will be unable to preserve its life without a 
mother's care. ' Ought we to believe that men raised 
themselves from a state of childhood to a high degree 
of perfection? We may imagine such a thing, but a 
mere glance at our nature must dispel such an idea. 
The first man could not have entered life in a rude and 
savage state of nature, as it would be contrary to the 
will, intelligence, and wisdom of the Creator; neither 
could he enter life as a child, because animal instincts 
were not given him. for self-preservation. He must be 
created perfect in corporal and spiritual life, organism, 
intelligence, and functions ; endowed with the faculties 
of comprehending, perceiving, and enjoying the true 
and the beautiful ; knowing God as his Creator ; seeing 
Him and hearkening to His loving words at the moment 
of his creation. In a word, man must " have sprung 
fully armed, like Athene, from the head of Zeus." 

143. (10) To Create Man as a Savage was Un- 
worthy of God.— To all these reasons we may add 
one more, namely: that it would not be in accord with 
God's love, wisdom, and solicitude for man, to place him 
in this world like a savage, an orphan, or a defenceless 
child. He could create man for every possible state, and 
through His almighty power preserve him in every one. 
But is it not more in harmony with His paternal and 
infinite love and wisdom, and with the purpose and 



MAN CREATED IN RELATIVE PERFECTION. 23 I 

arrangements of creation, to create man in the pleni- 
tude of spiritual and physical power; man, who, accord- 
ing to his spirit, is God's own image and likeness? Is 
not this a view more beautiful and satisfactory to our 
reason than that which asks us to assume that our 
primitive parents were like fishes lying on the sand of 
the shore, like jelly on the rocks of the ocean, like tad- 
poles in stagnant ponds, or like wild animals roving the 
forests and awaiting culture and development? Away 
with such a horrid and debasing doctrine ! None but 
materialists can believe such a thing ! 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

The antiquity of man and modern chronologists.— Are their cal- 
culations reconcilable with the accounts given by Genesis? 
—The genealogical tables.— Three lessons.— Consequences 
resulting from Biblical chronology.— Impossibility of fixing 
the date of man's creation.— Mankind very probably over 
8000 years old.— New difficulty.— Supposed omissions in the 
genealogical tables.— Proofs of this supposition.— Admitting 
such omissions, mankind dates back more than 8000 years.— 
The ten Chaldean antediluvian kings.— The value of the 
Chaldean Sar.— Tabular view.— Theory of P. Bourdais.— 
Conclusion. 

Modern science within its legitimate sphere has 
largely benefited the human race. It has done much 
to cultivate and elevate the present generation in me- 
chanics, commerce, and industry. It has dispelled many 
illusions, superstitions, and false ideas of natural laws; 
but scientists have also done much to create and foster 
irreligious views, indifferentism, latitudinarianism, and 
scepticism, by encroaching on the domain of theology 
and attacking the fundamental truths of Christianity. 
True science is the handmaid of revelation; rational- 
istic science is the Lethe of moral depravity. It is a mat- 
ter for regret that only too many scientists, to say noth- 
ing of their crudeness in theological knowledge, are 
children in philosophy, bad metaphysicians in their own 
science. Such sciolists and charlatans ridicule and deny 
revelation and set up science as judge and standard of 
sacred as well as profane things. 



232 



the age of mankind. 233 

144. In What Geologists and Chronologists 
Agree as Regards the Age of Mankind. — Modern 
geologists and chronologists are unanimous in the be- 
lief that man is of more recent origin than the earth 
we inhabit; the majority are also in accord regard- 
ing his age, and attribute to him a longer period on 
earth than the interpreters of the Bible are willing to 
concede; while many, as Lyell, for instance, acknowl- 
edge and confirm the Biblical account that our ancestors 
appeared upon earth after the creation of plants and 
animals; evolutionists and infidels, rather than pay 
homage to the Sacred Text on this point, fix his origin 
thousands of years prior to sacred and profane chro- 
nology. 

Haeckel and those of his school who maintain that 
man is descended from an anthropoid monkey, assume 
many centuries, in order to explain the transition of man 
from an irrational and bestial state to a rational and 
highly cultivated human condition. " More than one 
hundred thousand years," says the Jena professor, "per- 
haps hundreds of thousands, have passed since the 
origin of man." ' 

These gentlemen without hesitation assume thousands 
of years ; many throw in millions to balance their wild 
and reckless speculations with geolog) T and the long 
periods of organic and atomic formation that culminated 
in the formation of man. Dr. Draper attributes to man 
in Europe an antiquity of 250,000 years. Burmeister 
places the appearance of man in Egypt at 72,000 years 
ago, and Dupuis gives him an existence of between 
14,000 and 15,000 years. Some geologists are disposed 
to believe that the human species is about 100,000 years 
old, while others, like Mortillet, demand from 200,000 to 
250,000 years. 

1 Haeckel, " Schopftmgsgeschichte," p. 509. 



234 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

Certain naturalists, however, who do not belong to 
the materialistic school, theorize in an analogous man- 
ner. M. Saporta, for instance, puts the appearance of 
man upon earth at least 200,000 years ago. Calculations 
based on the bones of animals, flints, stone hatchets, 
lake dwellings, cave deposits, pottery, etc., have no satis- 
factory foundation . 

145. Are their Calculations Reconcilable with 
the Accounts of Genesis? — Are these and similar cal- 
culations reconcilable with the accounts given by Gene- 
sis ? In order to answer this question intelligently, we 
must inquire into the speculations of science and the 
generally received chronology of .the Bible and sift the 
true from the false as far as possible. 

The patriarchal age, which furnishes the elements of 
Biblical chronology, extends in sacred history from the 
first man Adam to the exodus of the Israelites. From 
the chronological point of view, the latter part of this 
age, which begins with the vocation or birth of Abraham, 
ought to be examined and studied apart, because no 
serious apologetic question is raised in regard to it. 
Both historians and critics agree in placing the life of 
the "Father of the faithful" about twenty centuries 
before the Christian era. Hence there is question here 
only of the period anterior to Abraham . 

146. The Genealogical Tables of Genesis.— The 
sacred documents which we have to consult in regard 
to this subject are not numerous, and may be reduced 
to two: the tables of Genesis v., 1-32, and xi., 10-26. 
However, we do not find in these chapters an established 
chronology, but only the elements from which to con- 
struct a scientific system of Biblical chronology. It is 
very important to make this remark in advance, as 
it will in a great measure relieve the inspired writer 
from responsibility for the various systems of chronology 



THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF GENESIS. 235 

which authors have sought to establish on the basis of 

Biblical data. 

At first sight nothing seems easier than to build up 
a chronology of the patriarchs with the help of the dates 
in Scripture for the life of each one. To add twenty 
numbers, which express the ages of the successive pa- 
triarchs at the time when each ancestor begot his imme- 
diate descendant, seems all the work necessary to arrive 
at the date of the appearance of man upon earth as com- 
pared with the epoch of Abraham. In this manner, it 
seems, Ave may find the teaching of the Bible on the 
antiquity of man. The comparison of this result with 
the results of contemporary science upon the same ques- 
tion will show whether there is, or is not, harmony 
between faith and science. 

Such an inference, however, would be decidedly hasty. 
In the first place, it would be wrong to assume a con- 
flict between revelation and science in regard to a point 
not included in the teaching of the Church as it is act- 
ually formulated. The Biblical teaching, if teaching 
there be, on the antiquity of man, on the date of the 
creation of the first man as compared with the date of 
Abraham or the Christian era, has not until the present 
been the object of any formal definition, and probably 
will not be defined very soon. Furthermore, there has 
been disagreement on this subject among the recognized 
representatives of tradition since the beginning of 
Christianity; none of the doctors of the Church has 
considered any computations relating to the date in ques- 
tion as matter of faith. The question of chronology 
has therefore remained outside of the teaching of the 
Church; this is a point we must not forget. 

But though the right of inquiry be unhampered by 
any authoritative definition, it would be extreme rash- 
ness to affirm that we have found the true Biblical 



236 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

chronology for the patriarchs anterior to Abraham. To 
keep clear of assertions destitute of solid foundation, it 
is necessary to solve three questions : First, what is the 
true reading of the Sacred Text? Second, has the sacred 
writer made any omissions? Third, what is the inter- 
pretation of the terms employed? 

147. (1) The Genealogical Tables Constitute 
only Chronological Elements. — The restoration of 
the true text of Moses, dealing with the years which com- 
prised the lives of the patriarchs anterior to Abraham, con- 
stitutes the first embarrassing question for the exegetist. 
Taking into his hands the genealogical tables as given 
in Genesis, he finds himself face to face with three prin- 
cipal readings, from which he may make a selection, or 
he may reject all in favor of a fourth reading more or 
less probable, on the supposition that the true reading- 
has been lost in all the manuscripts of the Bible now 
known. These three readings are furnished to us: (a) 
by the text of the Hebrew (and the Vulgate) as the 
Massoretes have left it to us, and as Onkelos possessed it 
when writing his Targuma, in the first century of the 
Christian era (b) by the Greek version, or Septuagint; 
(c) by the Samaritan text. 

These readings make known to us, besides the direct 
descent of the patriarchs, the age of each patriarch at 
the birth of his successor in the genealogical series. 
Thus, for instance, we see that Adam begot Seth in his 
130th year, that Seth begot Enos in his 105th year, etc. 
Therefore, from the creation of Adam to the birth of 
Seth there are 1 30 years ; from this epoch to the birth 
of Enos, 130 plus 105 — or 235 years. By adding in 
this manner all the figures furnished by Genesis, it is 
easy to calculate the time which separated the first man 
from the epoch of Abraham. 

What is the result ? The calculations which the 






THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF GENESIS. 



237 



chronologists have made, though starting with the same 
dates, arrived at different results. Why? Because the 
figures on which their calculations were based are not 
the same in the original texts which have come to us. 
There is a difference of about 1500 years between the 
Jewish, Samaritan, and Greek dates. The following 
genealogical table will show the respective chronologies 
of our three sources. 



Names of the Patriarchs. 



Age at the Birth of their 
Sons according to the 



1. Adam 

2. Seth 

3. Enos 

4. Cainan , 

5. Malaleel , 

6. Jared , 

7. Henoch 

8. Mathusala , 

9. Lamech 

10. Noe 

From Noe to the Deluge. 

Total 



1. Sem, two years after the Deluge, 

begot 

2. Arphaxad - 

3. Cainan 

4. Sale 

5. Heber 

6. Phaleg 

7. Ren 

8. Sarng 

9. Nachor 

10. Thare 

Abraham's vocation 



From Arphaxad, or from the Del-j 
uge to the vocation of Abraham. 

From the creation of Adam to the; 
vocation of Abraham 



Hebrew 


Septna- 


Samari- 


Text. 


gint. 


tan Text. 


130 


230 


130 


105 


205 


105 


90 


190 


90 


70 


170 


70 


65 


165 


65 


162 


162 


62 


65 


165 


65 


187 


167 


67 


182 


188 


53 


500 


500 


500 


100 


100 


100 


1656 


2242 


1307 


2 


2 


2 


35 


135 


35 


• • 


I30 


• • 


30 


I30 


130 


34 


134 


134 


30 


I30 


130 


32 


132 


132 


3° 


I30 


130 


29 


79 


79 


70 


70 


70 


75 


75 


75 


367 


1 147 


1017 


2023 


3389 


2324 



238 antiquity of man and biblical chronology. 

148. Discrepancies between the Three Author- 
ities. — Thus, according to the Hebrew-Massoretic text, 
from the creation of Adam to the Deluge there were 
1656 years; according to the Hebrew-Samaritan, 1307 
years; according to the Greek Septuagint, 2242 years. 
From the Deluge to Abraham the difference is no less 
apparent. The Jews count 367 years, the Samaritans 
1017 years, the Septuagint 1147 years. Before the 
Deluge the Samaritan falls short of the Hebrew text. 
After the Deluge it diverges from the Hebrew and 
approaches the Septuagint, from which it differs only by 
the omission of Cainan. 

Some of the discrepancies which appear in the figures 
of these three sources are due to the copyists ; others 
maybe due to design, as suggested by St. Augustine.' 
Indeed, the Samaritan and Septuagint texts add 100 
years to the Hebrew dates. What is the reason for this 
difference between the Jewish text on the one hand and 
the Greek version on the other? How does it come that 
the Samaritan now agrees with the Hebrew and then 
with the Greek ? Efforts have been made to solve these 
problems since the first centuries of Christianity, but 
without success ; attempts to find a plausible solution 
have failed so far, and the words of St. Augustine 
always remain true : " We give no explanation where 
the explanation would be unsatisfactory." 2 

Besides, we need not here look for the cause of these 
discrepancies ; it is only important to remark that they 
are the cause of the differences in Biblical chronology. 
When we investigate the different systems of the chro- 
nologists, we find that one expresses himself in favor of 
the Septuagint, another in favor of the Hebrew and Vul- 
gate, and a third favors a combination of the different 
dates according to his own method. 

1<l De Civitate Dei," xv. xiii. i. vol. xl. col. 453. 
2 Ibid. , xvi. x. 2 vol. xli. col. 489. 



the septuagint. 239 

149. The Septuagint and its Venerable Author- 
ITY . The Septuagint version is one of the most vener- 
able authorities. Its tables served to establish the era 
or date of the creation of the world adopted by the 
patriarchal churches. This date is fixed for the year 
5504 by the Church of Alexandria, 5490 by the Church 
of Antioch, 5510 by the Church of Constantinople, and 
5199 by the Church of Rome. JMartyrologium Romanum, 
December 25th.) The Chronicon Paschale, based also 
on the Septuagint, fixes the date for the year 5507. 
The first fathers of the Church likewise adopted the 
tables of this version ; those of the Greek Church took 
them directly from the Septuagint ; those of the Latin 
Church received them through the Itala, an early Latin 
translation made after the ancient Greek version. 
George Syncellus x and Hesychius also reckon the time 
from the creation of man to the Incarnation of Christ on 
the basis of the Septuagint. 2 

Among modern authors who have declared in favor of 
the Septuagint are P. Morin, 3 P. Martin, 4 P. Pezron, 5 a 
professor of the Protestant Academy at Saumur, Louis 
Cappel, in a controversy on this point with John Buxtorf, 
Jr., Isaac Vossius, another Protestant writer, who main- 
tained the same thesis against George Horn, Alphonse 
de Vignoles, Hales, Jackson, Panvinio, and others. 

The tables of the Hebrew-Jewish text enjoy the au- 
thority which many claim they possess owing to the fact 
of their being arranged by the Massoretes. They are also 

'Chronogr. ed. Dindorf., vol. i., p. 590. 

2 Cardinal Baronius observes : " Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam anti- 
quitus consuevisse supputare annos ab origine rrmndi non secun- 
dum Hebraicam editionem, sed, secundum Septuaginta duos in- 
terpretes." Apparatus ad Ann. Eccl., § 118. 

3 " Exercitationes Biblicae," Paris, 1669. 

4 " Sinica? Historian Decas," Munich, 1658. 

& " Chronologie de l'Histoire Sainte," 1738, vol. i., p. 2. 



24O ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

supported by the Targum of Onkelos, which establishes 
the high antiquity of this reading, and especially by the 
adoption of the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version by 
the Council of Trent. The Jews of to-day adopt the tables 
of their own text. The chronology based on these tables 
has prevailed since the sixteenth century, thanks to 
the authority of Joseph Scaliger, who laid the foun- 
dation of modern chronological science in his book, " De 
Emendation e Temporum," 1583, and who attributed 
exaggerated value to the Hebrew text. Bossuet, Peta- 
vius, Usher (Usserius), and Clinton calculate the date of 
the creation of man after this Hebrew text, or the 
Vulgate. 

The tables of the Hebrew-Samaritan text have not 
attracted very much attention. However, they were 
adopted in ancient times by the author of the Apocry- 
phal writing, called the "small Genesis," and in modern 
times by Lepsius, the German Egyptologist. 1 

The tables of the Septuagint have the highest and 
strongest authorities in their favor; the choice, however, 
remains absolutely free between them and the Hebrew 
texts. The scientific critic undoubtedly has the right 
to study these numbers and to seek the true reading, 
the figures written by Moses himself. This right is not 
disputed ; it remains to be seen whether the task is or 
is not beyond his powers. Many authors have no hope 
that a satisfactory result can ever be reached. 

1 50. Consequences Resulting from Biblical Chro- 
nology. — What have we to conclude from all the facts 
under consideration? In the first place, the Church 
does not guarantee the correctness of either of the two 
chronologies (Septuagint and Hebrew) , and her author- 
ity does not oblige us to adhere rigorously to the text 
transmitted by tradition or to the sense attributed to it. 

a " Chronologie der Aegyptier," Berlin, 1849, vol. L, p. 397. 



date of the creation of man. 241 

151. Impossibility of Fixing the Date of the 
Creation of Man. — Another consequence is that it is 
impossible to fix with certainty the date of the creation 
of man. The most competent authors are unanimously 
agreed on this subject. " The number of years passed 
from the Creation to the nativity of Christ is uncer- 
tain," says Pagi, the learned annotator of Cardinal Baro- 
nius. . . . " We can never know for certain what was the 
age of the world at the time of the Incarnation." P. 
Petavius, who consecrated so many vigils to clear up this 
chronological question, makes the following confession 
in his " De Doctrina Temporum : " " We have no certain 
means of knowing at what date the Creation took place, 
and we would need a special revelation from God in 
order to know it. They are in error who dare not only 
to determine it with certainty, but also to treat with 
contempt those who believe that they can add or sub- 
tract from the numbers given in Scripture." 

The reason for this uncertainty is that even supposing 
the genealogical lists of Genesis to be complete, it is 
impossible in the present state of the text to know the 
real figures written by Moses. We have no decisive 
reason to prefer the Septuagint to the Hebrew or the 
Hebrew to the Samaritan. All attempts of the learned 
to arrive at a solution have been unsuccessful; nay, 
more, perhaps all the three tables are false, and the fig- 
ures have been changed in all the texts. The latter 
hypothesis is far from being improbable, for, as Molloy 
and Brucker have justly observed, 1 it is impossible to 
prove that some generations have not been omitted inten- 
tionally or accidentally, perhaps by the copyists, or by the 
sacred writer himself. Therefore, we have to conclude 
with Bishop Meignan : " It appears to us that the exact 



" La Controverse," March 15, 1886. 
16 



242 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

date of the appearance of man upon earth cannot be 
fixed with certainty." ' 

" However," says the Abbe Vigouroux, " we may hold 
with probability that whatever the alterations of the num- 
bers in the book of Genesis may be, they cannot be very 
considerable ; and consequently when we do not. assign 
a fixed date to the origin of the human species, and place 
man between 4000 and 6000 years before Christ, we may 
rest assured that we are not mistaken. But here a new 
question presents itself to our mind. It is perfectly true 
that mankind cannot be older than about 8000 years, if 
the tables of the antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs 
are without omissions in the text, but it is different if 
they are fragmentary and incomplete. May we not be 
permitted to assume this ? Are we sure of possessing 
the entire catalogue of all the descendants of Adam 
until Abraham in a direct line ?" 2 This is what we must 

inquire into. 

152. (2) There Are Omissions in the Genealogical 

Tables of Scripture.— Criticism has unquestionably 
established omissions in the genealogical tables which 
the various books of Scripture contain. Let us take, for 
example, the genealogy of the Saviour, after the twenty 
antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs. The gen- 
erations of Esron, who appears to have been born in 
Chanaan (Gen. xlvi., 8-12), of Aram, and of Aminadab, 
seem insufficient to fill up the interval of time which 
elapsed from the establishment of the Israelites in Ges- 
sen to their migration in the desert, during which 
Naasson was phylarch (chief) of the tribe of Juda. At 
least this is the opinion of those authors who reject as 
an interpolation the words, "and in the land of Cha- 
naan" (Ex. xii., 40), in the Septuagint and in the Sa- 

1U Le Monde," etc. 

2 "Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., p. 238. 



OMISSIONS IN THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES. 243 

maritan text ; and these authors become more numerous 
every day. Among those in the sixteenth century we 
find Eugubinus Stenchus and Guilbert Genebrard ; in our 
days, Dr. Haneberg, Abbe Vigouroux, P. Brucker, M. 
Halevy, etc. 

Naasson died in the desert. He, together with 
Salmon, who married Rahab after the taking of 
Jericho; Booz, Obed, Jesse, and David, in all six 
generations, fill up the time from the Exodus to 
the building of the Temple, about the beginning of 
the reign of Solomon. Now this interval was 480 
years in length. Lequien, a Jesuit father, concludes 
from this that there are omissions for this epoch in the 
genealogical tables of Ruth iv., 18-22; I. Paralipomenon 
ii., 11— 15; Matt, i., 4,5; Luke iii., 31-33. 

We add several other examples to confirm the above. 
Even in the Pentateuch, Laban, grandson of Nachor, is 
called his son, owing to the omission of the name of 
Bethuel, his father; Jochabed, the mother of Moses, is 
called the daughter of Levi, though Levi was certainly 
dead long before her birth. 1 In the first book of Para- 
lipomenon, Suebal, contemporary with David, is called 
the son of Gersom, w T ho was the son of Moses, and 
lived several centuries before him. In the third and 
fourth books of Kings, and also in the second of Parali- 
pomenon, Jehu is named the son of Namsi ; yet he was 
Namsi's grandson. In Esdras, Addo, who was only Zach- 
arius' grandfather, is called his father. There are other 
genealogical omissions in the same book; for instance, 
between Azarias and Maraioth he omits five members — ■ 
Johanan, Azarias, Achimaas, Achitob, and Amarias/ 

1 Gen. xxix., 5, andxxxviii., 5; Num. xxvi., 59. 

■I. Par. xxvi., 24; I. (III.) Reg. xix., 16; II. (IV.) Reg. ix., 20; 
II. Par. xxii., 7; II. (IV.) Reg. ix., 2-14; I. Esd. v., 1; Zach. i., 
1-7; I. Esd. vii., 3; I. Par. vi., 7-14. 



244 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

From the fact thus established we may draw the con- 
clusion that there is a possibility of many similar omis- 
sions in the genealogical tables. Two Jesuits, P. Von 
Hummelauer and P. Brucker, have taken up this point. 
The views of P. Brucker, in favor of omissions in the 
tables of the twenty patriarchs, have met with opposition 
among- the learned members of the Oratory of Rennes. 
In "La Controverse" (1886) the Abbe Ch. Robert has 
submitted for the consideration of the learned Jesuit 
many judicious observations, and the Abbe Hamard, 
without positively rejecting his views, for excellent rea- 
sons justifies those who refuse to admit them. 

153. The Most Remarkable Example of Omis- 
sion. The most remarkable example of omission, as 

the Abbe Vigouroux observes, is that which is drawn 
from the Gospel of St. Matthew. The sacred author 
purposely excludes from the genealogical list of Our Sav- 
iour three well-known royal names: Joas, Amasias, and 
Azarias. This suppression deserves our attention the 
more, as it serves to reveal the motive for the system- 
atic omission of certain links in the genealogical chain. 
In fact, they seem to have been omitted as a means of 
aiding the memory; as the table of generations was 
learned by heart, recourse was had to various means to 
assist the memory and to retain these dry lists of names. 
With this in view, the evangelist subdivided ! the series 
into three great groups, each of fourteen numbers, and 
because the second number would have contained seven- 
teen, instead of fourteen names, the harmonious order 
of his distribution would have been destroyed ; therefore 
he eliminated three members. 

Analogous mnemonic reasons may have modified the 
patriarchal genealogies. Indeed, they seem to have been 
arranged on a simpler system ; for there are ten patri- 

'Matt. i., 17. 



MANKIND OVER SOOO YEARS OLD. 245 

archs before, and ten after the Deluge, a number easily 
retained, which corresponds to the fingers of the two 
hands, upon the number of which the decimal system is 
founded. 

To sum up, the arrangement in groups of ten of the 
patriarchs before and after the Deluge, the Oriental 
custom of suppressing intermediate members in their 
genealogical tables, suggests to us plausible grounds for 
admitting the probability of omissions in the lists which 
Moses has transmitted to us of the direct descendants of 
Adam until Abraham. If this be the case, the date of 
man's creation may be much more ancient than has 
been believed hitherto, on account of the longer dura- 
tion of life among the patriarchs omitted in the cata- 
logue of Genesis ; consequently, the epoch of man's 
appearance on earth is altogether uncertain, not only 
because we do not know the real figures written by the 
author of the Pentateuch, but also because there may be 
omissions in the genealogical series. If the corruption 
of the figures modify the antiquity of man only in a 
limited degree, this is not the case if generations have 
been omitted; for if these omissions are numerous the ' 
date of man's creation may be put back many centuries. 

154. Mankind very Probably Over 8000 Years 
Old. — Thus, if we consult the Bible alone, we find our- 
selves in almost complete darkness as regards the anti- 
quity of man. It is possible that man's creation dates 
back only 6000 3^ears, according to the actual Hebrew 
text ; it is possible that it dates back 8000 years, accord- 
ing to the Septuagint ; but it is also possible that a longer 
period has elapsed, on account of the omissions that may 
exist in the genealogical tables. Such is the final conclu- 
sion of chronological critics, and such is the conclusion 
to which a critical study of the Sacred Text leads us, for 
with all our facts and speculations we must admit our 



246 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

ignorance and uncertainty at the very threshold. Still 
the question of omissions will continue to occupy the 
minds of the learned in chronology, and quite new views 
will suggest themselves, as we notice in the case of P. 
Bourdais, an eminent French commentator. 

155. New View About the Genealogical Lists. — 
"According to formal testimony," says P. Bourdais, "of 
St. Jude, 1 St. Paul, 2 Jesus, Ben-Sirach, 3 the Roman 
Ritual, 4 on the existence, not only of Adam and Noe, 
ancestors par excellence of the first and second humanity, 
but of the other primitive patriarchs, such as Henoch, it 
does not seem to us reconcilable with orthodoxy to deny 
the individual existence of the twenty patriarchs. How- 
ever, we admit without difficulty that the names desig- 
nating these patriarchs in the tables of Genesis have 
such a comprehensive sense that they may designate 
both individuals and ethnic groups more or less exten- 
sive and connected with these names. The ethno- 
graphic table of the tenth chapter of Genesis is inter- 
preted to-day in an analogous manner, with the differ- 
ence, however, that the individuality of the ancestral 
progenitor of a people in a certain number of cases dis- 
appears there almost altogether. According to our sys- 
tem, the twenty Biblical patriarchs would be separated in 
the course of the centuries anterior to Abraham, and be- 
tween each of them would be placed an undetermined 
number of unknown generations. Such is the broad 
concession we would make to the partisans of omis- 
sions in the genealogical tables in question above. 

"Thus, instead of understanding these lists to mean 
that each patriarch represents a genealogical group in- 
cluded with him under his name, we should assign to the 
several groups the number of years given in the tables. 

'Ep. Cath., 14. 2 Heb. xi., 5. 3 Ecclus. xliv., 16. 

4 " Litanies of the Prayers for the Dying." 



THE TEN ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 247 

In the series of numbers in which Moses gives the chro- 
nology of the time before Abraham it is hard for us to 
admit omissions. Certainly, if we adopt this view, the 
advantages to be gained for the defence of the Bible from 
the hypothesis of omissions in the tables of the twenty 
patriarchs would disappear. But criticism also has 
imperative demands. These compel us to reject the 
hypothesis of elasticity in the numbers marking the age 
of the twenty patriarchs. The comparison of Biblical 
chronology with Chaldean tradition leads us to this con- 
clusion. °The Chaldean tradition may have changed 
more or less; it is unquestionable, however, that it was 
derived from the same source as the facts of Genesis at 
a time when the tradition was still unadulterated. Taken 
as a whole it agrees with Genesis in a striking manner', 
particularly on primitive chronology." ' 

156. (3) Chronological Table of the Ten Ante- 
diluvian Patriarchs. — From Adam to Noe, that is, 
from the Creation to the Deluge, the Bible counts ten 
patriarchs. The Chaldean traditions also give ten ante- 
diluvian kings. It is impossible not to recognize in the 
number "ten" a survival of the primitive tradition, for 
it appears with remarkable persistency in the legen- 
dary traditions of many nations. The principal human 
races always speak of -ten primitive fathers, the founders 
of their institutions, the root from which they sprang. 
Among the Iranians they are the ten Peshdadian mon- 
archs, "the men of the ancient law," who lived on the 
pure homa, or draught of immortality; among the Hin- 
doos, the nine Brahmadikas, who, with Brahma, their 
author, are called the ten Pitris or fathers; among the 
Germans and Scandinavians, the ten ancestors of Odin; 
among the Chinese, the ten emperors who partook of the 
>Cf. " Dictionnaire Apologetique," by Jaugy, article " Chro- 
nologic des Patriarchs." 



248 ANTIQUITY OF MAX AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

divine nature before the dawn of historical times ; among 
the Arabs, the ten mythical kings of the Adites, the 
primitive inhabitants of the peninsula comprised between 
the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, etc. The Phenician 
Sanchoniathon also gives ten generations of primitive 
patriarchs. This constant occurrence of the number ten 
is the more striking because it is connected in no way 
with religious or philosophical speculations on the mys- 
tic value of numbers. 1 

The Babylonian tradition in the time of Berosus attrib- 
uted to the reign of each antediluvian king a marvel- 
lous duration, if we are guided by the computation of 
the sar — a period which Chaldean historians make use 
of in their chronology. The sar is generally estimated 
at 3600 years, and thus we arrive at the enormous num- 
ber of 432,000 years from the first king to the Deluge. 
In this calculation we have only a remembrance of the 
longevity of primitive men. 

Moses of Khorene, the national historian of Armenia, 
speaking on the history of Berosus and the Chaldean 
kings, says : " The ancient writers have changed the 
names and duration of life of the antediluvian patri- 
archs. Whether led by their fancy, or by other motives, 
what they say about the origin of things is a mix- 
ture of truth and falsehood. Thus, in speaking of the 
first created being, they make a king of him instead of 
a simple man, give him a barbarous name without mean- 
ing, and finally attribute to him 36,000 years of life. . . . 
So, also, they give Noe a different name and assign to 
him a life of immense duration." 2 

Moses of Khorene, in attributing to the sar the value 
of 3600 years, only copied the Chaldean historian Aby- 

^enormant, " Manuel de l'Histoire ancienne de l'Orient," vol. 
i., pp. 19, 20. 

2 Cf. " Collection des Historiens de rArmenie," de V. Langlois. 



THE TEN ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 249 

denus on the subject of the ten antediluvian monarchs. 
He also says, " The sar contains 3600 years, the ner, 
600 years, the soss, 60 years." 1 Eusebius, resuming 
Berosus, after Apollodorus or Polyhistor, says : " The 
time during which these ten kings reigned was 120 sars, 
that is, 432,000 years." 2 

However, as regards the opinion of Berosus and his 
abbreviators on the value of the sar in his antedilu- 
vian chronology, it is not certain that we should attrib- 
ute to it a duration of 3600 years. A precious passage 
in Suidas teaches us that the sar also represented among 
the Babylonians the period of eighteen years and six 
months. "The sars," he says, "of the Chaldeans are 
both a measure and a number; 1,20 sars, according to 
the calculations of the Chaldeans, make 2222 years, for 
the sar contains 222 lunar months, which is equivalent 
to 18 years and 6 months." 3 

The sar, therefore, had a double value — an astronom- 
ical one, corresponding to 3600 years, and a civil one, viz., 
eighteen years and six months. Following this sugges- 
tion of Suidas, it seems plain that the 120 antediluvian 
sars of Berosus were civil sars, for to take the 120 sars at 
their astronomical value would extend to a fabulous length 
the time which the history of Babylon assigns to the period 
which preceded the great cataclysm. Now, if we give 
to the sars the value of eighteen years and six months, 
we find that between the Biblical and the Chaldean 
chronology there is a harmony, the more striking because 
we arrive at it in different ways; the former being 
founded on the age of the patriarchs at the birth of their 
first-born sons, and the second on the duration attributed 



1 « 



Historicorum Graecorum Fragmenta," vol. ii., p. 499. Cf. 
Migne, " Patrologia Grseca," vol. xix. , col. 121. 
2 Ibid., loc. cit., col. 11 3- 114. 
3 Suidas, "Lexicon," edit. Krister, vol. iii., p. 289. 



2 50 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

to the reign of each of the ten antediluvian kings. In 
this manner we use different figures and obtain an almost 
identical result, as may be seen from the following 
table : 



Biblical Antedi- 
luvian Patri- 
archs. 1 



Year of birth of 
the first-born 
son of each 
patriarch ac- 
cording to — 



SARS. 



Adam .... 

Seth 

Enos 

Cainan . . . 
Malaleel. . 

Jared 

Henoch . . 
Mathusala 
Lamech . . 
Noe 

Totals . . 









£ 



^ 



130 
105 

90 
70 

65 

162 

65 
187 

182 

600 



^ 






>s 



<-5 



<0 






1656 



130 
105 

QO 1 

70 

65 
62! 

6 5 ! 
67 

53 
600 



230 
205 
190 
170 

165 
162 
165 
167 
188 
600 



1 30752242 



185 

55K 
240^ 

222 

333 
185 

333 
185 
148 

333 



3 
V 

£ 



o 

O 



Chaldean An- 
tediluvian 
Kings.' 2 



10 

3 

13 
12 

18 

10 

18 

10 

8 

18 



36,000 
10,800 
46,800 
43,200 
64,800 
36,000 
64,800 
36,000 
28,800 
64,800 



Adorns. 

Alaparns. 

Amillaroas. 

Ammenon. 

Amegalarns. 

Daonns. 

Edoreschns. 

Amempsinns. 

Obartes. 

Xisnthrns. 



2220 



120 1 432,000 



When we compare Chaldean chronology with that of 
the Bible, the numbers do not agree, and nevertheless 
the sum total of years from the creation of man until 
the Deluge, as given by Babylonian chronology, the value 
of the sar given by Suidas being assumed to be correct, 
differs only by 22 years from the chronology of the Septu- 
agint, while the Septuagint differs by 575 years from the 

1 Petan, " De DoctrinaTempornm," 1. ix., c. viii., edit. 1703, vol. 

'Berosus, in Ensebins, " Chron. Arm.,'* 1. i., c i. ; Migne, " Pa- 
trologia Grseca," vol. xix., col. 107-108. 



THE TEN ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 25 I 

Hebrew and Vulgate, and by 945 years from the Samar- 
itan version. This agreement between the chronology 
of the Septuagint and the Chaldean computation might 
seem fortuitous, but as the Chaldeans had so many tra- 
ditions in common with the Hebrews, it cannot well be 
purely accidental. 

According to Lenormant, the ten antediluvian kings 
of Babylon, whose names have nothing in common with 
those of the Biblical patriarchs, are personifications of 
the signs of the zodiac, of the Mazzaloth or "solar man- 
sions," which infidel Hebrews at the time of Assyrian 
supremacy adored along with the sun, the moon, and 
the whole celestial army. 1 "We believe it to be more 
exact," remarks Vigouroux, "to say that the names of 
the ten primitive kings, however disfigured, were 
given to the signs of the zodiac, just as the Latins gave 
to plants the names of their gods, and as in the Middle 
Ages, and even to-day, popular language gives to con- 
stellations Biblical names, as the name of 'Chariot of 
David' to the Great Bear, and 'The Three Magi' to 
the Belt of the Orion. There are more than ten signs 
of the zodiac, and the ancients did not knoAv ten 
planets." 

We do not know the exact duration which Berosus 
attributed to the reigns or lives of the postdiluvian 
Chaldean patriarchs, because we possess only fragments 
of his Babylonian history. However, we may assume 
that he counted the duration of their reigns also accord- 
ing to the Babylonian sar, that is, according to its civil 
value of eighteen years and six months per sar. 

P. Bourdais, following his own system, according to 
which he holds that the names of the patriarchs in the 
genealogical tables of the Bible designate both an in- 

1 II. (IV.) Kings xxiii., 5 ; Lenormant, " Essai de Commentaire 
de Berose," pp. 233-238. 



2 52 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

dividual and an ethnic group, arrives at the following 
conclusion : 

"In the table of Chaldean antediluvian patriarchs," he 
says, " the sum of the numbers of the column on the left 
(the sar=i8 years and 6 months) seems to be equal, not 
in its figures, but in the length of time, to the sum of the 
numbers on the right (the sar= 3600 years) . The average 
number of years in the life of each patriarch is a cyclic 
day, exactly the duration of each of the works of the 
hexahemeron. Certain numbers belong to correspond- 
ing periods of time, whether natural or conventional, and 
appear to be their ideographic signs, like the 365 years 
of the life of Henoch. Authors begin to regard the 
whole system of the primitive chronology of the Bible 
as an arrangement of numbers having a cyclic character, 
a vague value and a figurative sense, instead of being used 
in their literal sense, with a precise value and a posi- 
tive character. Consequently the Bible does not furnish 
us the elements of a scientific chronology of primitive 
times." 1 

157. Cosmic Days in the Chaldean and Biblical 
Chronologies. — Let us observe that the exegetists 
known to be respectful towards the Sacred Text, even 
the most timorous, admit to-day this figurative sense, 
this vague value of the days of creation which have also 
a cyclic character, and constitute, in the whole of the 
week which they form, a system of cosmogonic chro- 
nology. Fr. Lenormant has proved this in a scientific 
manner. 2 The Chaldeans preserved the tradition of the 
hexahemeron in the week of creation, and saw in each day 



1 << 



Essai de Commentaire," pp. 238, 240. 

2 The Chaldeans, for the history of the origin of the world, 

had devised a day of long duration, counted after the manner of 

the ordinary day, that is, a day of twelve hours, six for the night 

and six for the day; sixty minutes for each hour and sixty sec- 



THE CHALDEAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGIES. 253 

the twelve hours or great sars of 3600. Thus they attrib- 
uted to each nycthemeron the value of 43,200 years, 
and for them the whole week of creation formed 259,200 
years. The creative days of Moses, with their evening 
and morning, are cycles copied after the nycthemeron or 
ordinary natural day, but their subdivisions are less 
extended. To judge of the length of life of the antedi- 
luvian patriarchs according to Moses, compared with the 
duration of the reigns of the antediluvian kings of Bero- 
sus, the Mosaic day, the twelve hours of the Biblical 
text are the fiftieth part of the corresponding Chal- 
dean periods. P. Bourdais is of the opinion that the 
total duration of the hexahemeron according to Moses is 
about 259-200/50-5-184 years. "A conscientious exe- 
getist," he says, "will not reject these figures for the 
interpretation of the six days of creation. But all exe- 
getists will grant to the geologists that these days, if 
taken in a figurative sense, can be extended and have 
as such the value of an undetermined period. It is thus 
that we establish the system of 'epoch days' for the 
reconciliation of revelation and science in matters of 
cosmogony.'" 

We have amplified the third section of our subject to 
show the bearing which this chronological system of the 
Chaldeans has on the interpretation of the genealogical 
tables of the twenty patriarchs as given in Genesis. The 
time may come when it will be impossible for the Chris- 
tian exegetist to prove that the chronology of the Sep- 
tuagint, even allowing the omissions referred to before, 
is sufficient to satisfy the just claims of both geology 

onds for each minute. Each second of the cosmic day represented 
an ordinary year, each minute sixty years, and each hour 3600 
years ; the cosmic day itself, having twelve hours, represented 
43,200 years. Cf. Lenormant, " Essai de Commentaire," pp. 
185-217. 



2 54 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 

and paleontology. In this case the system of P. Bour- 
dais would not fail to satisfy any chronological claims 
for the antiquity of the human race. 

158. Conclusion: The Bible Teaches Nothing 
Definite about the Antiquity of Man. — In con- 
cluding this chapter the reader will not fail to observe 
that Holy Scripture does not teach anything definite 
about the age of man. But if Scripture does not teach 
anything explicitly and authoritatively, is there not 
another source from which we may learn? Does pro- 
fane science enlighten us on this question? Does it 
remove the doubts which the comparative study of prim- 
itive texts and of the Biblical genealogies leave to us ? 
These are the questions which remain to be answered. 

In the true spirit of inquiry it is our right to make use 
of the lights which paleontology on the one hand, and 
the history of ancient nations on the other, furnish us 
in order to interpret more intelligently the Sacred Text; 
then it will be easy to show that the short chronology 
which is drawn from the Hebrew text is insufficient, 
and that that of the Septuagint in its postdiluvian table 
is perhaps also too restricted. It follows from this that 
the existence of omissions in the genealogies of Gene- 
sis becomes quite probable, and that it is only by this 
means, together with the aid of those ancient monu- 
ments, whose testimony is unquestionable, that we are 
put in possession of facts and knowledge that enable 
us to reconcile the Mosaic account with the data of mod- 
ern research. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

The claims of science.— Antiquity of man according to geology. — 
Alluvions. — Peat-moors.— Stalagmites.— Antiquity of man 
according to physical geography.— Antiquity of man as in- 
ferred from climatic changes. — These changes are exag- 
gerated. — Valuable hints from ancient writers. — Antiquity of 
man as indicated by changes in the fauna.— Alleged pre- 
historic animals. — We cannot draw a line between the age 
of the mammoth and the reindeer. — Man contemporary with 
many extinct animals. — Tertiary and quaternary man. — 
The age of the acerotherium, halitherium, and elephas meri- 
dionalis. — Quaternary man. —What is tertiary and what 
is quaternary? — Powerful catastrophes. — Antiquity of man 
judged by the progress of his industry. — Five types of primi- 
tive man. — The ages of stone, bronze, and iron are not con- 
secutive. — No necessity of extra-scientific hypotheses. — 
Conclusion. 

The materialistic school claims unlimited authority ; it 
proclaims publicly and aggressively the insufficiency of 
the time accorded to man by traditional or Biblical chro- 
nology; it laughs to scorn the six or eight thousand 
years which span the generations of the human race, 
and it rebukes the obstinate and retrogressive ideas of 
Christians for not keeping abreast of the spirit of prog- 
ress and enlightenment. Every day this demand grows 
louder, this assertion more forcible, till Christian sci- 
entists submit to and accept the new dogma. This 
excessive docility and submission to the behests of mate- 
rialistic science is condemned by true science itself, 
for science must not dogmatize nor assume authority on 



256 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

any question without due confirmation of the proofs sub- 
mitted. 

159. What Does Science Teach Us about the 
Antiquity of Man? — It is curious to note the readiness 
of some men to accept everything new and startling, 
and to efface and destroy the old landmarks of time and 
history, merely because somebody has said they are 
fogyish. Men have never been more rebellious against 
religious dogma than in our days, and yet they have never 
bowed with more humble submission to assertions put 
forward in the name of science by self-styled savants. 
When we are told " science has spoken ' the case is 
settled. Everything must give way to science; every- 
thing have her seal and approbation. But has science 
spoken? Are we sure that these misguided sceptics, 
infidels, and materialists do not err in their speculative 
theories like many other weak and diseased minds which 
trespass on the domain of theology? What is there in 
scientists to claim immunity from error? Scientists must 
bring forward their proofs and support them, and not 
only must their proofs support their conclusions, but in 
their terminology they must maintain exactness of defi- 
nition ; they should not coin new phrases to lend a subtle 
charm and varnish to fanciful theories. We call sci- 
entists to the bar of judgment; we shall try them before 
an unbiassed jury; and we are willing to submit the 
verdict to the intelligence of our readers. 

Prehistoric man has been a favorite theme of amateur 
scientists and over-zealous materialistic theorists, who 
attempt to justify their erroneous speculations by calling 
to their aid long periods of time. If man's reasoning 
power is at fault in dealing with social and business 
questions, with religious and political issues, what 
guarantee have we that his ideas on scientific questions 
are exempt from error or fallacy ? Man does not know 



TEACHING OF SCIENCE. 257 

himself ; his active mind is ever planning, ever schem- 
ing, ever craving to reach above and beyond the tangi- 
ble and the visible. Beyond the limits of history he can 
roam at will and indulge in all manner of extravagant 
speculations. History denies him nights of fancy, self- 
styled science encourages him to ignore everything that 
is incompatible with its teachings. He may be the veriest 
crank upon earth or the most consummate humbug, still 
so-called science will shield him from either appellation, 
and the world knows him as an "advanced thinker." 

Has science good grounds and solid facts on which to 
build its teaching on man's prehistoric advent? What 
are the leading points in its affirmations? Science says 
they can be reduced to the following: Considerable 
changes have taken place upon the surface of our globe 
since the advent of man; the earth's physical geography 
has changed; here, the land has risen and encroached 
upon the sea; there, it has sunk, and the waters have 
spread over the land ; enormous deposits of gravel or 
peat have been formed on the uplands or in the valleys ; 
the Arctic climate, which formerly extended over large 
tracts of the earth, has been modified ; glaciers have 
receded toAvards the poles; gigantic animals, like the 
elephant, formerly lived in company with man ; man, 
himself a savage, has modified his implements at differ- 
ent times, and slowly improved the industrial arts and 
the resources of his own development, which presup- 
poses a long period of time. 

If we accept these loose assertions about the physical 
changes of the earth's surface from the time of man's 
advent as a savage to his present development, certainly 
traditional or Biblical chronology would fail to supply a 
full and consecutive genealogical history of the human 
race. But is there no exaggeration in the long periods 
so boldly claimed ? Could not these thousands and tens 
17 



258 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

of thousands of centuries be curtailed within reasonable 
limits and still be sufficient to account for all these 
changes? We think so, and we shall endeavor to prove 
our opinion by the testimony of eminent authorities. 

Owing to the importance of our subject, to avoid con- 
fusion we shall treat the question under six heads: (1) 
geology, properly speaking ; (2) orography and physical 
geography; (3) climate; (4) fauna; (5) archaeological 
discoveries; (6) the implements of man. 

160. (1) Antiquity of Man according to Geol- 
ogy.— Before going further we must first answer the fol- 
lowing question : Since what epoch has man made his 
appearance on earth? 

Natural science is in accord with the Bible in proving 
man the most recent of God's creatures. No fragment 
of a human body, no product of human art or industry 
has been found within the stratified rocks which contain 
the organic remains of extinct animals down to the last 
layers of the pliocene. Man, at most, has been the con- 
temporary of the mammoth, mastodon, cave bear, etc. ; 
it is certain he did not antedate them. Nay, more; he 
was not created till a long time after these animals, for 
only when the age of the cave bears closes do we find 
the' remains of both man and bear commingled. Until 
now no decisive proofs of the existence of man in the 
tertiary epoch have been produced. Heterodox savants 
themselves acknowledge this. " The existence of tertiary 
man," says the German rationalist, Virchow, " is a prob- 
lem." It is therefore useless to stop and discuss a ques- 
tion which does not rest upon solid proof ; but we may 
inquire into the value of direct arguments in favor of the 
high antiquity of man. 

Let us study the nature of geological deposits. These 
deposits are of mechanical origin, like the alluvial de- 
posits; or of organic origin, like the peat-moors; or of 



ALLUVIONS. 259 

chemical origin, like stalagmites and other concretions 
resulting from the precipitation of carbonate of lime kept 
in solution by water; or, finally, of archaeological origin, 
like human bones or objects of art buried in alluvial 
soil. Hence we have four quite natural divisions. 

161. (a) Alluvions. — The evidence so anxiously 
looked for that is to condemn traditional chronology is 
not found in the quaternary or the alluvium. If there 
were evidence of deposits formed regularly at the bot- 
tom of seas or lakes, such testimony should be furnished ; 
but the formations to which our attention is directed by 
the advocates of man's vast antiquity on earth are evi- 
dently due to violent phenomena, the most frequent being 
immense inundations, of whose great excavating and 
cutting power modern times give us hardly any idea. It 
is sufficient to witness some of these sudden scoopings 
out, to learn the devastating action and the transporting 
power of water. It has been calculated that this trans- 
porting power increases at least as the square of the rapid- 
itv of the current. Thus we understand that waters 
habitually calm and hardly charged with clay could, at 
certain periods, transport not only gravels and bowlders, 
but also pieces of sandstone and granite. 

One of the most remarkable localities, illustrating the 
power of water and the accumulation of alluvium, is 
the valley of the Somme in France, in the vicinity of 
Amiens. Here the first, and perhaps the most ancient, 
traces of quaternary man have been found. When 
we look at the thickness of these deposits, and the depth 
of the valley whose base they cover, we can hardly 
believe that this is the work of the modest river which 
rolls its quiet waters at the bottom of the basin. The 
fact is, we might allow thousands of years for their 
accumulation by the river in its present state without 
reaching the cutting power and the action needed to 



260 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

explain the immense excavations and transportations 
caused in a comparatively short time. But it is not 
necessary to go back very far in the past to establish the 
fact that the Somme did not always have the present 
volume and force. According to M. de Mercey, who has 
made this river his special study, 1 its waters at the 
Roman epoch were fifty times more abundant than in 
our days ; hence the deposits which have been formed 
since that time are very considerable. In certain places 
they have attained several yards in thickness, and present 
great similarity to the alluvia in which the axes of St. 
Acheul and the famous jawbone of Moulin Quignon 
were found. However, we can have no doubt regarding 
the age of these deposits, for quite at the bottom of them 
is found, with bowlder stones and marine shells, pottery 
which M. de Mortillet himself does not hesitate to attrib- 
ute to the end of the Roman epoch. 

The presence of marine shells and other deposits 
proves that the sea at that time must have extended to 
Amiens. The whole region was, undoubtedly, sink- 
ing, which caused a momentous submersion. A remark- 
able discovery in the Departementdu Nord tends to prove 
this. Below a marine deposit nine feet thick remains 
of the Roman epoch have been found, especially coins, 
whose most recent date bears the effigy of a prince 
who died a.d. 26;. We may conclude from this that 
the sea, at this epoch, covered the country around this 
locality, and remained long enough to deposit nine feet 
of sediment. However, this overflow could not have 
been of long duration, for since the seventh century 
some villages have been established on the shores. It 
is, therefore, within the time of two or three centuries 
that so considerable a deposit was accumulated. 2 

1 " Bulletin de la Societe Geologique," 1876-1877, p. 347- 

2 " Compte rendu du Congres Scientifique de Lille," 1874, p. 60. 



ALLUVIONS. 26l 

These instances of phenomenal erosions and deposits 
could easily be multiplied. An analogous case, of the 
same epoch, has been noticed at Lille. Here a layer of 
turf clay about eight feet high replaces the marine 
deposit; but the date is the same, for below is a fluvial 
deposit in which have been found coins bearing the 
image of a Byzantine emperor. This deposit proves the 
occurrence of a violent inundation, for it contains 
bowlders of flint and pieces of chalk as thick as a hand. 
The river Deule, a sleepy stream, hardly able now to 
carry its ordinary alluvium, cannot have transported 
these bowlders. 1 

To sum up: these facts show that a great inundation 
laid waste this locality at the end of the third century. 
History confirms this, for it tells us that the neighboring 
country had been thickly peopled, but was then suddenly 
deprived of its inhabitants. 

It is not surprising that a locality, overwhelmed by a 
violent catastrophe, should present considerable alluvial 
deposits. After all, the deposits which cover human 
remains do not seem anywhere to have a depth of more 
than twenty-one feet. This may appear much ; it is lit- 
tle, however, when we take into consideration that re- 
mains of the Roman epoch, among which is a medal of 
Marcus Aurelius, have been found in this neighborhood 
at a depth of twenty-five feet, under a triple bed of red- 
dish clay, muddy slime, and peat mixed with sand. 2 
If, taking this as a basis, we should calculate the age of 
the other deposits containing products of human indus- 
try, we should refer them to the sixth century before 
the Christian era. 

We should be justified in rejecting the results of some 

1 Cf. Gosselet, " Compte rendu du Congres Scientifique de Lille," 
1874. 

Materiaux pour l'Histoire de 1'Homme," 1878, p. 136. 



2 << 



262 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

calculations on the antiquity of the deposits we have 
mentioned, based on the age of similar deposits taken as 
criteria ; for formations of this kind are quite irregular. 
However, if we admit that deposits increased uniformly 
before and after the Roman epoch, we grant too much, 
for all geologists allow that such deposits accumulated 
more rapidly in the quaternary period than during the 
period of rest which followed. 

What we have said about the alluvia of the Somme 
Valley applies equally to those of other countries. Two 
centuries have sufficed for the Simethe (the Giaretta of 
to-day), the small river in Sicily that skirts the base of 
Etna and empties into the Mediterranean south of 
Catana, to dig out a passage one hundred feet wide and 
fifty deep through the hardest volcanic rocks. The 
Kander, in the canton of Bern, Switzerland, while chang- 
ing its course in 171 5, carried into Lake Thun, into 
which it flows, from one hundred and twenty to one hun- 
dred and fifty million cubic feet of matter in twenty days. 
Hence the thousands of years, and even centuries, which 
certain geologists claim do not rest on a solid foundation. 

162. {b) Peat-Moors. — Another argument for the 
antiquity of man is taken from the formation of peat 
moors or bogs, and the successive increase of the forest 
products which they contain, amid which are met human 

remains. 

The argument has but little weight, for peat is formed 
at the bottom of marshes in consequence of the decom- 
position of vegetable matter, and may form with great 
rapidity. Thousands of years have been claimed for the 
formation of the Somme peat-bogs, which contain human 
remains. These calculations are imaginary. The de- 
struction of a forest through a storm, towards the mid- 
dle of the seventeenth century, gave rise to a peat-bog 
at Lochbroom, Rosshire, England, and the inhabitants of 



PEAT-MOORS. 263 

the locality were cutting peat therefrom in less than a half 
century after the catastrophe. Lyell, the ardent cham- 
pion of long periods of time for man, in his " Principles 
of Geology," says: "All the weapons and implements 
(coins, axes, etc.) found in the peat-moors of France and 
the Grande Bretagne are Roman. A great part of the 
peat formations of Europe do not date further back than 
the time of Caesar. . . . Data for determining the age 
of peat can only be attained by multiplying such ob- 
servations and carefully comparing them. But up to 
the present no such careful observations have been made 
in order to determine what is the minimum time requi- 
site for the formation of a certain amount of peat." ' In 
the most ancient times, during the Bronze and Iron 
Age, peat must have formed more rapidly than in our 
days, because the accumulations of vegetable matter in 
primitive forests must have been very abundant. 

In answer to those who hold that the forest products 
which the peat contains go back to a very remote period, 

Lyell says : 

" By collecting and studying a great variety of ob- 
jects of human industry discovered in the peat, the 
Danish archaeologists were led to establish a chronolog- 
ical succession of periods, which they named ages of 
stone, bronze, and iron, according to the nature of the 
materials which served for the manufacturing of imple- 
ments. The Stone Age coincides with the period of the 
first vegetation, that of the Scotch pine, and, in part at 
least, with that of the second vegetation, or of the oak. 
A considerable portion of the oak period ought to 
coincide with the Bronze Age, for swords and shields of 
this metal have been found where the oak abounds. 
The Iron Age corresponds more correctly with the 
period of the beech." 2 

1 " Antiquity of Man," p. 156. 2 Ibid., p. 10. 



264 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

It is supposed that the Scotch pine dates back 6000 
years. A flint knife has been found under one of the 
trees in the most ancient zone, and this has led to the 
conclusion that Denmark was inhabited 6000 years ago. 
Professor Hitchcock has observed that the first forests 
of Scotch pine in Denmark might have been destroyed 
by fire during a single season, as often happens in North 
America, and been replaced later on by other vegeta- 
tion. The long periods of time which geologists claim 
are needed in order that the oak and beech should re- 
place the pine, are therefore not at all necessary. It is 
even probable that the different forest products of the 
peat-beds of Denmark existed at the same time, but 
were of different heights. Accidents and the extension 
of swamps, for instance, may have caused these products 
to superpose themselves upon one another, and thus 
give rise to the arrangement witnessed by the natur- 
alist. 

From these observations we can understand that there 
is no immediate prospect of obtaining a chronometer 
to calculate the growth of peat. Even in the same 
country, peat will grow in one place a foot and in an- 
other an inch, during the same period. Much depends 
on the condition of the soil and the plants which grow 
and accumulate there. 

Archaeology confirms the rapid increase of ancient 
peat-beds. In various parts of France and England 
we find ancient Roman roads covered with a thick 
layer of peat, covered sometimes by deposits of another 
nature. In London has been found under the ancient 
walls a bed of peat from six to nine feet thick, which 
must have been formed entirely during the Roman 
period, for we find there at different depths traces of 
this period. Not only quantities of Roman coins and 
other ancient remains have been found in the peat-beds 



PEAT- MOORS. 265 

of Scotland, but also Roman axes, still sticking in the 
trees, buried in the peat, suggesting at once the proba- 
bility that the Roman soldiers cut their way through these 
forests. 

We have been furnished with still more remarkable 
facts. The corpses of two persons who died in Derby- 
shire in 1674 were discovered twenty-seven years after- 
wards under three feet of peat. Coins of Edward 
IV., who died in 1483, have been found recently at a 
depth of eighteen feet. Finally, in Ireland, the most 
favored country of all for the production of peat, thanks 
to the humidity of the climate, small butter-tubs and a 
leather shoe have been found at a depth of fifteen to 
twenty feet, objects which do not seem older than the 
seventeenth century. 1 

It is said that the peat-bogs of Ireland grow five cen- 
timetres (about two inches) per year. The facts we 
have related and other similar facts make this assertion 
very probable. At this rate a bank of peat thirty feet 
thick — much thicker than that of the Somme Valley — 
could have formed in two hundred years. This conclu- 
sion is almost admitted by competent geologists. We 
read in the " Prodromus of Geology," by M. Vezian, that 
" a century is sufficient for such humble plants as the 
mosses to produce a bank of peat nine feet high." R. de 
Neuville goes a step further. " It seems to be proved," 
he says, " that, under favorable circumstances, the 
thickest beds of peat could have formed in the space of 
one or two centuries, even where it does not grow to-day 
because the necessary conditions for its development 
are wanting. 



»> 2 



1 For all these facts see Lyell's " Principles of Geology," vol. 
ii. ; Sonthall, "The Recent Origin of Man," _passim; De Nadail- 
lac, " Les Premiers Hommes," vol. ii. 
Materiaux," 1876, p. 358. 



2 <« 



266 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

We are far, it is plain, from the thousands and tens 
of thousands of centuries claimed by the adherents of 
long chronologies for the accumulation of peat. 

163. (V) Stalagmites. — The stalagmite is a deposit 
of calcareous matter, which is deposited at the bases of 
caverns, and often covers the products of human indus- 
try. It is produced by the evaporation of water which 
falls from the vaults of caves, and deposits on the soil 
the carbonate of lime which it holds in solution. 

If we knew the rate of accretion of stalagmites, it 
would be an easy matter to deduce the approximate 
age of the debris they cover up. This has been tried 
without success. Unfortunately, the data of the prob- 
lem are exceedingly uncertain. The growth of stalag- 
mites varies greatly according to times, places, and con- 
ditions. Hence the astonishing diversity of the results 
to which calculations have led. One author believes 
himself quite liberal in attributing only one mill- 
ion years to the formation of two stalagmite layers 
which have been found superposed in a cave in Kent, 
near Torquay, England, claiming that these layers to- 
p-ether are fifteen feet thick. At the same time an 
American author observes that the stalagmites of the 
caves in Virginia increase five millimetres per year, 
and there is no reason to think that the Kent stalagmites 
did not form with equal rapidity. At this rate, a thou- 
sand years would suffice for their formation. 

We have to add that the lower stalagmite, by far the 
most considerable, may have existed previous to the 
advent of man. The few flints found below are of a 
very doubtful shape, as well as rough-looking; besides, 
there is reason to question their authenticity on account 
of the many diggings and the attempts to build a long 
chronology on the deposits of this grotto. However, 
our American caves are not the only ones that prove the 



HUMAN BONES AND OBJECTS OF ART. 267 

rapidity of such formations under favorable circum- 
stances; we also find a grotto in the county of York, 
England, where the annual increase is nine millimetres, 
and Reclus mentions other facts of this kind, especially 
in one of the grottoes of Adelsberg, Austria. 

Undoubtedly, many of the stalagmites do not form as 
rapidly nowadays, but climatic conditions are not at 
present so favorable for this formation. It was quite 
different in the quaternary epoch. At that time there 
was more vegetation and greater humidity, charged with 
carbonic acid, the result of the decomposition of plants, 
and the water had more effect on the limestone. There- 
fore it would be imprudent to base any calculations on 
stalagmites, as they do not offer us anything reliable for 
even approximate dates on the advent of man in any 
country, no more than the peat-beds or river gravels. 

164. (d) Human Bones and Objects of Art. 

Another argument brought forward in favor of man's 
great antiquity is derived from human bones and ob- 
jects of art buried in alluvia. In the lower part of the 
Nile Valley no organic remains of extinct species have 
been found, but fragments of pottery and baked bricks 
have been met everywhere. Mr. Horner, from borings 
in the mud of the delta, found a piece of pottery at a 
depth of thirty-nine feet ; immediately it was inferred 
that the pottery had been buried 13,000 years. Sir John 
Lubbock and Sir Charles Lyell, accepting this conclu- 
sion, drew wonderful inferences, read in various papers 
before learned societies ; they concluded that the bricks 
and pottery of Egypt date back from 12,000 to 60,000 
years. Unfortunately for all this fine speculation, Sir 
R. Stephenson found in the delta near Damietta, at a 
greater depth than Mr. Horner had reached, a brick 
bearing on it the stamp of Mohammed AH. 1 Mr. Hor- 
1 Southall, " Recent Origin of Man," p. 474. 



268 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

ner, moreover, rated the growth of the mud deposits in 
a given spot at only three and a half inches in a cent- 
ury, but a description of the same spot by a Moham- 
medan writer, only six centuries ago, shows that the mud 
is deposited at the rate of over eighteen inches in a hun- 
dred years. 1 No wonder that even the Anthropologi- 
cal Review pronounces Mr. Horner's evidence as pre- 
posterous, and laments that Sir Charles Lyell should 
have thought it worth his while to notice such absurdi- 
ties. 2 

Indeed, all these calculations, together with those that 
have been made on the deltas of American rivers, — the 
Mississippi, for instance, — rest on arbitrary and false 
foundations. They suppose that these deposits were 
always made in a regular and constant manner, which, 
however, is not the case at all, for they must have been 
formed much more rapidly formerly when the masses of 
water were more abundant. Thus in Egypt, especially, 
movements of the soil have been shown to have taken 
place which destroy all these " airy hypotheses." These 
movements produced depressions in some parts of the 
Nile Valley, whilst it remained unchanged elsewhere. 
The Nile in a very short time filled up the hollow 
places with the slime which is at present carried into 
the sea. Calculations based on the hypothesis of a uni- 
form progress in deposits rest upon a false foundation. 

A very curious fact is related by Mr. J. Ferguson, an 
English resident in India. He says : " From these data 
it will be perceived how fallacious any conclusions must 
be which are drawn from borings into the strata of deltas 

1 Southall, op. cit., p. 474. 

2 " Pieces of brick stamped with a Grecian honeysuckle, and, 
therefore, at the earliest dating from the time of Alexander the 
Great, have been obtained from as great a depth as that of Mr. 
Horner's borings." Saville, " On the Truth of the Bible," p. 26. 



HUMAN BONES AND OBJECTS OF ART. 269 

and calculations formed from local superficial deposits. 
I myself have seen the bricks which formed the foun- 
dation of a house I had built carried away and strewed 
along the bottom of a river at a depth of thirty or forty 
feet below the level of the country. Since then the 
river has passed on, and a new village now stands on 
the spot where my bungalow stood, but forty feet above 
the ruins ; and any one who chooses to dig on the spot 
may find my rcliquice there, and form what theory he 
likes as to their antiquity or my age." 1 

The gentlemen who insist that long periods of time 
have elapsed since man's advent are not supported 
by geology, for geology does not solve the antiquity of 
our species. All it teaches is that man appeared in the 
quaternary period, and rather towards its end than 
towards its beginning. But let us remember that this 
age differed from ours. The causes which modified the 
surface of the land, and which manifested themselves 
with unusual intensity, make it impossible to infer its 
duration from the phenomena which distinguish it. 
The only criterion which geology offers is the thickness 
of deposits. As to the time it required to form these 
deposits, geologists are not agreed. 

The present state of science, therefore, authorizes 
only a negative conclusion. Nevertheless, of all the 
calculations referred to, the least well-supported is that 
which so generously distributes its thousands and mill- 
ions of years among the various periods of the quater- 
nary epoch. In spite of much talk it has been impossi- 
ble hitherto to prove the insufficiency of the ancient 
chronology. In the geological facts which they hold up 
to us, and which we have reviewed and summed up, 
"we see absolutely nothing," says M. de Lapporent (and 

lu Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society," Aug., 1863, 
P- 327. 



270 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

we agree with him), "which justifies the large figures 
before which certain authors do not flinch."- 1 

165. (2) The Antiquity of Man According to 
Physical Geography. — Considerable changes have 
taken place, we are told, in the distribution of land and sea 
and in the configuration of the continents since man first 
occupied the countries of western Europe. According 
to Lyell, 2 the English Channel did not exist at that time. 
Mortillet goes a step further, and avers not only that 
France was in direct communication with England, but 
that it was also united to Africa and America. Accord- 
ing to these views, considerable sinking and submersion 
of countries must have taken place at intervals since that 
epoch. 

On the other hand, it is claimed that the land has 
risen. Lyell shows us on the coast of Wales ma- 
rine shells of quaternary origin at a height of 1200 
feet. In Norway he finds marine sediment of the same 
age at a height of 600 feet. In Sardinia, near Cagliari, 
marine shells have been found associated with pottery 
1 70 feet above the level of the sea, according to the same 
author. 

All these movements of the earth which are supposed 
to have occurred after man's advent must have gone on 
with extreme slowness. Lyell asserts that the rate of 
rising was not more than seventy-five centimetres per 
century, because this would be the measure of the 
oscillations established in our days on the coasts of 
Sweden. Now, the basis of this calculation is not 
exact, for observation rather proves a mean rise of three 
feet per century on the Scandinavian coasts. Moreover, 
this movement is far from being uniform. It differs 
not only according to localities, however close to one 

1 " Traite de Geologic" 2d ed., p. 1284. 
244 Antiquity of Man." 



MAN ACCORDING TO PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. 27 1 

another they may be situated, but it varies at different 
times in the same places. This has lately been again 
proved in the case of the rock of Pitea, in the north of the 
Gulf of Bothnia. This rock, which rose only ninety- 
three centimetres in more than a century (from 1750 to 
185 1), has risen fifty centimetres in thirty-three years; 
that is, from 185 1 to 1884. 

We can show that considerable variations have been 
observed in other localities. The shores of Scotland, 
for instance, have risen from five to fifteen millimetres 
per year ; the Cape of Spitzbergen, according to Lamont, 
has risen over six feet during four hundred years. 
About one-half of the islands of the Pacific Ocean are 
believed to be rising continually ; the same can be said 
of the West Indies and the whole of the western 
coast of America. Among the most remarkable slow 
movements are those of the southern portion of Green- 
land ; the numerous coral-reefed islands and atolls of the 
Pacific; the coasts of Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and 
the south shore of the Baltic Sea. The coast of New- 
foundland, in the neighborhood of Conception Bay, and 
probably the whole island, is rising out of the ocean at 
a rate which fairly promises, at no distant day, to mate- 
rially impair, if not render useless, many of its. best har- 
bors. At Port de Grave a series of observations have 
been made which unquestionably prove the rapid dis- 
placement of the sea-level in the vicinity. The island 
of Sicily has also been considerably elevated in recent 
times; at some places the coast is two hundred feet 
above its former sea-level. 

All these changes can be easily established on the 
coasts because of the consequences which the least 
change of level causes. Here, the land has encroached 
upon the sea; there, on the contrary, it is the sea which 
has gained on the land. This latter phenomenon has 



272 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

taken place notably upon the northern coast of France, 
where, at low-water mark, undoubted proofs are met 
with that the continent formerly extended quite a dis- 
tance beyond the present coast-line. Here there has 
been an encroachment of the sea at a recent period. 

This increase and decrease of land along the coasts of 
certain countries are frequently observed. The waters 
have gained on the ancient coast of England. We know 
from Diodorus of Sicily that Cornish grain and tin were 
carried to the Isle of Wight at low-water mark on the 
backs of beasts. Perhaps it would not be going too far 
to say that a few centuries prior to this time the British 
islands were united to the continent. 

However, if this rising of the land extended over the 
whole northern portion of France, it must have been 
interrupted at times by a contrary phenomenon ; for we 
have proof that a part of this territory was lower towards 
the end of the Roman epoch than in our days. Some 
pages back we spoke of the«state of alluvial deposits in 
the Departement du Nord, and of coins with ancient effi- 
gies found under a marine layer nine feet thick. We 
must infer from this that the sea covered this country for 
some time towards the beginning of the third century of 
our era, and how could it do this, if the soil was at its 

present level? 

An analogous statement has been made by M. de Mer- 
cey regarding the Somme Valley. The discovery of 
marine shells and of bowlders associated with Roman 
relics has led this geologist to believe that the sea 
ascended to Amiens about fifteen centuries ago. Now, 
the spot where the discovery was made is to-day sixty 
feet above the level of the sea. Here, again, we would 
have more than three feet increase per century, if the 
rising took place uniformly. But there is reason to 
believe that it took place suddenly. We cannot other- 



UPHEAVALS AND DEPRESSIONS. 273 

wise explain the violent phenomena which accompanied 
the receding waters and the traces left behind, even in 
the city of Lille. 

In spite of the denials of certain scientists, these sud- 
den movements are not rare ; indeed, they may be even 
more frequent and better established than slow move- 
ments. If space would permit, we could cite numerous 
instances of the kind which have taken place, even in the 
last two centuries, from earthquakes and volcanic erup- 
tions, not to speak of other phenomena. We shall men- 
tion a few to show how fallacious are theories put for- 
ward by scientists who assume to dictate to and £uide 
all. 

166. Sudden and Gradual Upheavals and De- 
pressions. — The small island of Santorin (Cyclades) 
sprang up suddenly from the bosom of the water at dif- 
ferent periods, especially in 1707 and 1866; the island 
Xyon rose in 1783 and disappeared again in less than a 
year afterwards ; the island of Julia, or Graham, appeared 
with the same rapidity to the south-east of Sicily in 183 1, 
only to sink beneath the waves at the end of some 
months; the Jorullo, a volcano, rose suddenly in 1759 
to a height of about 1500 feet in the midst of the Mexi- 
can plains; a notable portion of New Zealand rose nine 
feet in one night, January 23, 1855; the coast of Chili 
was agitated in our century by movements which had 
the result of raising the shore and adjoining islands from 
six to nine feet ; a portion of India, representing nearly 
one square mile, was suddenly buried under the waters 
of the sea, whilst a chain of hills sprang up about two 
miles away in the midst of a plain ; Calabria sank here 
and there, to rise afterwards during the terrible shocks 
of earthquakes which it experienced in 1783 ; in the val- 
ley of the Mississippi lakes eight miles in extent formed 

in the space of an hour in 18 12 ; a quay of Lisbon sank 
18 



2 74 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

suddenly from under a crowd of people at the time of 
the earthquake in i 7 75, and engulfed them beneath four 
hundred and fifty feet of water; finally, the recent catas- 
trophe of the Sonda Islands caused the submersion of 
other islands, and modified the physical geography of 
that portion of the globe so that navigators were obliged 
to somewhat change their course. 

The reader can see by this hasty and partial enumera- 
tion whether violent phenomena, sudden movements of 
the earth, are rare in our days. There is every reason to 
believe that they were still more common during the 
geological periods, especially during the last, or quater- 
nary period. We do not think that any reliable geologist 

-will question this. . 

We cannot, therefore, judge of the duration of the 
quaternary period by the greatness of the oscillations 
which took place therein. It is well to observe, how- 
ever, that these oscillations, supposing that they were 
only three feet per century, would not seriously affect 
the antiquity of man. Although marine sediments have 
teen found at a height of six hundred feet in Norway, 
and of twelve hundred feet in Wales, there is nothing 
in these finds which proves that man existed at the time 
of their formation. Only in Sardinia have products of 
human industry been met in sediments of this nature 
but at a height which does not exceed two hundred and 
seventy feet. Undoubtedly, even this is a good deal, it 
we suppose that the rise has been three feet per century 
on the average; on this hypothesis we must conclude 
that man lived in Sardinia nine thousand years ago, 
which is not in agreement with traditional chronology 
But the rate of three feet per century, which has not 
been adequately established anywhere, is altogether 
inapplicable to a region so frequently agitated by vol- 
canic eruptions and commotions as the islands on 



MODIFICATIONS IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. 275 

the coast of Italy. Moreover, as we saw before, it is 
pretty well established that similar risings of land took 
place in other localities, for instance, on the coasts of 
Scotland and Sweden. E. Dumas sees in the pottery and 
heaps of shells found in these places remains of cookery 
analogous to the Kjokken moddings ' of Denmark. 

The objection drawn from the ancient connection of 
Spain with Africa at Gibraltar, and with America by a 
continent now sunk, does not merit serious attention. 
It is a hypothesis far from proven, especially as regards 
the connection of Europe and America. If these coun- 
tries were connected, it was before the appearance of 
man, as their fauna prove. It is remarkable that natur- 
alists who admit the junction of Europe and America 
when there is question of multiplying the proofs of the 
antiquity of man, are the first to deny the existence of At- 
lantis (an island of the Atlantic Ocean) when there is 
question of explaining the peopling of the New World 
from the Old. Such are the contradictions to which 
party spirit leads ! 

167. Modifications in Physical Geography do 
not Oblige us to Extend Traditional Chronol- 
ogy. — The few considerations which we have already 
submitted should be sufficient to prove that the modi- 
fications in physical geography and the frame of the 
globe since the beginning of the quaternary epoch 
do not in any manner force us to extend human chro- 
nology. Either these movements took place before 
man appeared on earth, or they may be explained 
without accumulating centuries to explain them, as we 
shall show further on. When we reflect on the phe- 
nomena of this nature which have taken place, so to 
say, before our eyes, during the historic period ; when 
we recall that the description given by Cassar of the 
1 E. Reclus, " La Terre," vol. L, p. 120. 



276 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

coasts of France does not agree with its actual shores ; 
when we bear in mind that the quaternary period was 
much more irregular in its phenomena of convulsion 
and more agitated than our times, we are astonished that 
no more considerable changes have taken place in the 
configuration of the land during the five or six thousand 
years which have elapsed since man occupied western 

Europe. 1 

168. (3) The Antiquity of Man and Climatic 
Changes. — Some scientists are pleased to insist on the 
slowness with which important climatic changes have 
taken place in the world since the appearance of man, 
that is, since the quaternary period. We shall strive to 
prove that these changes have been exaggerated, and 
that they do not date back to as remote a period as is 
pretended. 

169. O) Climatic Changes Have Been Exagger- 
ated. —The quaternary period, at least in part, is 
identical with the glacial period, so called because it was 
characterized by the existence of considerable glaciers. 
Traces of ancient glaciers are still apparent in the moun- 
tainous districts of France, such as the Pyrenees and 
Auvergne, the Vosges, and particularly the Alps and the 
contiguous country. One of these icy rivers, the least 
studied of all, did not measure less than three hundred 
miles in length; it extended from Haut Valais to the 
hillock of Fourviers, near Lyons, filling in the whole 
valley of the Rhone— the lake of Geneva included. 

, However, it is certain that there is much exaggeration 
in dealing with prehistoric subjects. One school, which 
is designated the glacial school, teaches that the whole 
of France, if not all Europe, was covered with an 
immense mantle of ice. Had this been the case they 
' Cf. " Dictionnaire Apologetique," article " Antiquite de 
l'Homme." 



CLIMATIC CHANGES HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED. 277 

ought to be able to establish, an interruption in the veg- 
etable and animal life, for, evidently, plants and animals 
could not have lived under such conditions. Now pale- 
ontology does not show anything of the kind. The 
species which lived before the glacial period for the 
most part still exist. Among the fifty-seven species 
of mollusks discovered in the strata ante-dating- the 
glaciers, fifty-four live in our day. All our wild an- 
imals, and a certain number which have disappeared, 
date from the quaternary epoch and were contemporar}^ 
with the great glaciers. Vegetation, too, in the quater- 
nary period was extremely vigorous. We know this 
from the little that is left us, but more especially from 
the presence of a number of herbivorous animals — stags, 
horses, elephants, rhinoceroses, etc., which enlivened the 
plains and valleys, not only of Europe, but also of Amer- 
ica, at that time. Evidently they could not have lived 
and propagated themselves without abundant vegetation. 

What has most deceived the adherents of the glacial 
theory is the fact that rocks, gravels, and other materials 
have been found spread here and there at long distances 
from the mountains whence they came. The transporta- 
tion of the so-called erratic rocks has appeared to them 
inexplicable in any other manner, and the piles of rocks 
and gravels have been considered as so many moraines, 
that is, deposits of materials transported by glaciers. 
They forget that, besides ice, other agents of transpor- 
tation exist; water in liquid, state has often produced 
analogous effects, and it has been the error of the gla- 
cialists to attribute to one the effects of the other. 

Erratic rocks and moraines are undoubtedly the 
ordinary indications of ancient glaciers, but, unless con- 
firmed by other evidence, they are not sufficient proof. 
In order to convince us, they should be accompanied by 
striated rocks, as we find them in the neighborhood of 



2/8 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

our actual glaciers. When all these signs are present 
together there is hardly any possibility of error ; but one 
alone is not enough, because it may be the effect of 

other causes. 

Because scientists now understand this they are 
inclined to reduce considerably the extension of the 
ancient glaciers, and the lowering of the temperature of 
the quaternary epoch. We must not, however, fall 
into the opposite excess, and assert, as some have 
done, that the temperature has rather been reduced 
since that epoch. It is not only the extension of the 
glaciers which proves that it was colder in the quaternary 
period than now ; quaternary animals also are a proof of 
this. At that time lived, on the plains of Europe, par- 
ticularly on those of France, the reindeer, the glutton, 
the camel, and the marmot, which are not found to-day ex- 
cept in higher latitudes or at more considerable heights. 
The mammoth and rhinoceros are no exceptions to this 
statement, for we know they were organized to live in 
cold countries. 

170. The Temperature was at Most Four De- 
grees Lower.— It seems, therefore, that the temperature 
was really lower in the quaternary period, that is, at the 
time when man appeared in Europe ; but the difference 
is not so great as some pretend. A lowering of four 
degrees is sufficient, according to Ch. Martin, to explain 
the ancient extension of the glaciers. We may even 
take this figure as a maximum, for it is proved to-day 
that mankind played the chief rSlc in the glacial phe- 
nomena. The beds of rivers and alluvia tell us that not 
all water was in a solid state then ; the glaciers were 
much more extended than in our days, and the courses 
of water were infinitely more voluminous. 

The above statement, with regard to the temperature, 
agrees also with the most recent discoveries. Lately, 



THE GLACIERS. 279 

Torell, a Swedish naturalist, has discovered our ordinary 
oyster, Ostrca cdulis, in a fossil state at various points 
in northern Germany. It was found imbedded in the 
so-called cypridina clay, strata which immediately pre- 
cede the first glacial period. This same oyster lives 
to-day in the North and Baltic seas, and penetrates 
northward to the Polar circle. Here, the bottom tem- 
perature of the sea is 6° C. ; the surface temperature 
ascends in summer to at least 21 C. Hence, when 
the Ostrca cdulis became fossilized in the cypridina clay, 
the temperature must have been at least as low as it is 
at present in the Polar circle. 

But on- the cypridina strata are superposed other 
strata, which are partly previous to the glacial period, 
partly posterior to it. They have as guiding fossil a 
shell called Yoldia arctica. The yoldia is at home to-day 
in the northern Polar sea in places where the bottom 
temperature varies between o° and 2° C, whilst the 
upper surface of the sea does not exceed 5 C. It 
cannot live in warm waters. From this it follows that, 
during the glacial age also, especially after the first 
glacializing in Germany, the climate must have been 
similar to that on the northern coast of Siberia. l 

171. (b) The Glaciers do not Date as Far Back 
as Some Think. — It might be thought at first sight that 
a state of things so different from ours presupposes a very 
considerable lapse of time and brings us to a remote 
period. Nothing of the kind. To trace climatic condi- 
tions such as we have described, there is no need of taking 
refuge in the darkness of prehistoric times ; it is sufficient 
to go back fifteen or twenty centuries. All the informa- 
tion we possess about this epoch is sufficient to show us 
that all Europe and the neighboring countries of Asia 
and Africa were colder and damper then than now. 
1 " Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1889-1890, p. 372. 



2 80 the antiquity of man and geology. 

172. Testimony of the Writers of Antiquity. — 
To the writers of antiquity we are indebted for valuable 
information regarding this subject. Herodotus describes 
for us the climate of Scythia as similar to the climate of 
Lapland and Greenland to-day. He describes the country 
as completely frozen over during eight months of the 
year; the Black Sea, for instance, was frozen up so that 
it bore the heaviest loads ; the region of the Danube was 
buried under snow for eight months, and was watered in 
summer by abundant rains, which gave to the river its 
violent course. 

Herodotus adds that the ass cannot live in Scythia on 
account of the extreme cold which reigns there. In the 
following century Aristotle makes the same remark 
regarding Gaul. His contemporary Theophrastus also 
tells us that the olive-tree did not prosper in Greece 
more than four hundred furlongs from the sea. We 
need not add that in our days neither the ass nor the 
olive has any trouble to live in the countries mentioned. 

Three centuries afterwards Caesar speaks frequently 
and emphatically of the rigor of the winters and the 
early setting in of cold weather in France ; of the abun- 
dance of snow and rain. He also dwells on the number 
of lakes, marshes, and swamps which every moment 
became obstacles to the marching of his army. He 
speaks of being cautious to undertake any expedition 
except in summer, owing to the severity of the climate 
and the suffering of his troops. 

Cicero, Varro, Posidonius, and Strabo also speak of 
the rigor of the climate in Gaul, which allowed neither 
the culture of the vine nor that of the olive. Diodorus 
of Sicily confirms this information. " The cold of winter 
in Gaul is such," he says, "that almost all the rivers 
freeze up and form natural bridges, over which numer- 
ous armies pass quite safely with teams and baggage ; 



TESTIMONY OF WRITERS OF ANTIQUITY. 28 1 

in order to prevent the passengers from slipping on the 
ice, and to render the marching more secure, they 
spread straw thereon." 

Virgil and Ovid in turn describe the intensity of cold 
in the region of the Danube. The former shows that 
this river was crossed by teams, and that the miserable 
inhabitants of these countries withdrew into caves, and 
covered themselves with the skins of wild beasts. We 
might almost say that the poet describes a scene in the 
quaternary epoch. 

Ovid, who passed several years of his life in that 
region, is more precise in his description: "The Dan- 
ube," he says, " this large river, which empties into a 
vast sea, freezes so as to conceal its fall into the 
bosom of the Pontus-Euxinus [Black Sea]. Men march 
with firm step where vessels floated. The waves, frozen 
by the cold, re-echo under the feet of the horses, 
and the oxen of Sarmatia roll their heavy carts over 
these new bridges. I have seen this, yet it can hardly 
be believed, although my account merits full belief, for 
I have no interest in disguising the truth. I have seen 
ice cover the whole extent of the Pontus-Euxinus. It is 
little to have seen it. I have myself marched over these 
frozen waters. The wine has changed here into a solid, 
frozen mass; it is given to be drunk by pieces." And 
as he fears to be accused of poetic exaggeration, he ap- 
peals to the testimony of two ancient governors of 
Maesia, who could establish the facts like himself. We 
can see that Ovid took every precaution to be truthful 
and precise in his statements. The author who would 
speak thus of the Black Sea in our days would risk his 
reputation for veracity. 

Italy, too, in early days experienced its share of the 
cold which reigned more severely in the north. Virgil 
tells us of the snows heaped up, the rivers which carried 



282 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

the ice along, the sad winter which split the stone and 
bound up the course of large streams, and all this in the 
warmest part of Italy— at the very base of the walls of 
Taranto. Horace shows us Soracte, a mountain near 
Rome, whitened by thick snow ; "the rivers stopped by 
the bitter frost and suspending their courses;" the coun- 
try covered with snow. To-day the snow lies on Soracte 
but a very short time. 

During the following four or five centuries writers 
indicate the same severity of the climate in North 
Italy. Owing to want of space we cannot reproduce 
their testimony. However, we believe we may draw 
the legitimate conclusion from the writers we have cited 
that our climate has modified sensibly since the begin- 
ning of the prehistoric period. This is the pronounced 
view of an eminent author who has made a careful study 
of this question : " If there was ever a fact demonstrated 
in history," says M. Fuster, "it is the extreme rigor of 
the climate of ancient Gaul. All the witnesses, all the 
opinions, every circumstance, proclaim aloud with one 
voice the intensity of its cold, the superabundance of its 
rains, and the violence of its storms. It is in vain to 
struggle against this fact by opposing to it false notions 
or prejudices which are supported by nothing ; this fact 
will triumph sooner or later as the truth." 1 We may 
add that geology and archaeology join their testimony 
to that of history. The learned studies of M. de Mercey 
on the. Somme, of M. de Rossi on the Tiber, of M. Bel- 
grand on the Seine, and of M. Rosemont on the Rhone, 
have proved that these rivers two thousand years ago 
rolled much greater masses of water than now. 

The same is true of the Danube, of the Rhine, and 
of other rivers of Central Europe. Algiers was much 
damper than at present, owing to the humidity of its 
1 " Des Changements dans le Climat," 1845. 



ALLEGED PREHISTORIC ANIMALS. 283 

abundant vegetation, which, has almost totally disap- 
peared. Asia and North America possessed a much more 
humid and colder climate fifteen to twenty centuries 
ago. Everything goes to prove that the rivers carried 
larger volumes of water, the level of the lakes was 
higher, and the flora was more abundant and varied. 

173. Climatic Changes Do Not Impugn the Tra- 
ditional Chronology. — From these facts we conclude 
that considerable changes have taken place in twenty 
centuries. If the volume of water and the intensity of 
cold were not at that time as great as they must have 
been in quaternary times, the difference was slight; and 
we are convinced that many of the phenomena attrib- 
uted by geologists to the quaternary epoch really took 
place in historic times. In any case, when we consider 
the short space of time sufficient for all these climatic 
modifications, it must be admitted that in order to ob- 
tain (if there be any need of it) a degree less in the 
temperature of the seasons, it is not necessary to go 
very far back in prehistoric times ; surely traditional 
chronology affords us plenty of time to account for all 
these changes. 

174. (4) Antiquity of Man as Indicated by 
Changes of Fauna. — Another argument brought in 
favor of the antiquity of man is the disappearance of 
the greatest part of the quaternary fauna. It is supposed 
that this disappearance took place in a slow and gradual 
manner; and as it is known that man lived at the same 
time as these animals, it is inferred that man must have 
appeared upon earth at a very early time. 

175. Alleged Prehistoric Animals Could Easily 
Live during the Historic Period. — It is now gener- 
ally acknowledged that man existed in Central Europe 
at a period when it was inhabited by animals that are 
now either extinct or that do not live there at present. 



284 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

The fact that human remains have often been found 
mixed with the bones of animals, sometimes with one 
kind, sometimes with another, does not justify us in 
dividing the time of man's existence into periods, as 
some naturalists have done, and in calling these periods 
after the animals with whose bones human bones are 
found associated — e.g., the periods of the mammoth and 
the reindeer. At any rate, we must not imagine these 
periods to have been so clearly defined that on the day 
of the death of the last cave bear the first generation of 
the mammoth appeared. The reindeer and aurochs 
undoubtedly existed in the mammoth period ; it is only 
called the mammoth period because the mammoth died 
out in that period, whereas the reindeer and aurochs 
continued to exist. In order to convince ourselves of 
this, it is sufficient to cast a rapid glance, first on the 
animals which disappeared in prehistoric times, and 
secondly on the species which man has seen disappear 
in the historic epoch. 

The species which have been considered contemporary 
with man, and which have disappeared in ancient times, 
are the mammoth (Elephas primigenius) , the woolly rhi- 
noceros (Rhinoceros tichorinus) , the great bear, or cave 
bear (Ursus spelceus), the cave lion (Felis spclcea), the Irish 
stag {Cervus megaceros), the cave hyena {Hycena spelcea), 
and the reindeer {Cervus tarandus). We shall briefly 
discuss the antiquity of each. 

The co-existence of the elephant with man in Europe 
perhaps surprises us most, for this animal no longer 
lives in Europe. Nevertheless, the African elephant at 
one time roamed over Spain and France, and existed in 
Hanno's time in North Africa, whilst to-day it is found 
only in Central Africa. Paleontologists may, at some 
future day, find the bones of this animal in all of the 
above-mentioned countries. In Central Africa they 



ALLEGED PREHISTORIC ANIMALS. 285 

may find its remains alongside of a musket-ball ; in 
North Africa, with Carthaginian weapons ; then they 
may surprise their contemporaries by various pro- 
found theories about a remote ''period of the ElcpJias 
africanus" during which the North Africans understood 
the working of iron, the Central Africans knew even 
the use of the shotgun, whilst, on the contrary, the Gallic 
plains were apparently a wilderness untrodden by man. 

There are two or more species of the elephant which, 
in the quaternary or post-glacial epoch, seem to have 
overspread the plains of Europe and Asia in vast herds. 
One of these (Elcphas'primigenius) we know, from the per- 
fect specimen found imbedded in the frozen soil of 
Siberia, lived till a modern period. It was covered with 
long hair, fitting it for a cold climate. There were also 
three or four species of rhinoceros, one of which (Rhi- 
noceros tichorinus) was clad with wool, like the great Sibe- 
rian mammoth. Mr. Brodie, an English author, observes 
that it is not yet 3,000 years since the aborigines were 
hunting this animal in the marshy plains of France to- 
gether with the mammoth. 

These two animals are, to all appearance, the most 
ancient which have co-existed with man. It was believed 
for a time that the great bears or cave bears preceded 
them ; but, besides the fact that this species is not always 
easily distinguished from specimens belonging to exist- 
ing species, there is now every reason to believe that it did 
not appear until a recent epoch. Remains of these bears 
have been found in different localities associated with 
remains of existing species, and even with those of 
our domestic animals. Perhaps it is to this species we 
are indebted for the remarkably large specimens which 
we find described in documents of the Middle Ages. 

The lion, too, is one of the animals which Parthenopex 
of Blois designates among the inhabitants of the forests 



2 86 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

of France. The song of " Roland" also makes it live in 
the woods of the Ardennes. All we know outside of 
these documents is, unfortunately, destitute of authority. 
However, it is certain that the lion was more common 
then than in our times. Greek writers tell us that it 
inhabited the mountains of Thrace, Macedonia, and 
Thessaly. It abounded in Africa, where the Romans 
captured hundreds of lions for the games of the circus. 
There is no positive proof that this animal did not 
inhabit some unfrequented recess of Europe at this time, 
where it needed not to dread the approach of man as 
much as in Africa at the present day. 

The Irish stag is also one of the species which have 
totally disappeared, but whose extinction does not seem 
to date back very far. It has been said of this animal 
that it was represented upon the monuments, sought 
after by the Romans for its savory flesh, and imported 
from England. We place no confidence in this account, 
though it is far from being wholly improbable. Re- 
mains of the Irish elk have been found in peat-beds 
of recent formation, and the naturalists who are most 
disposed to make the so-called quaternary species very 
ancient acknowledge that there is reason to make an 
exception for this species. 

The cave hyena need hardly detain us, for it is prob- 
able that it is not an extinct species. It is, say Chantre 
and Lartet, confounded, with the striated hyena, and 
we must not be surprised to find it all over the world, 
under a climate relatively cold, for it has a very ex- 
tensive habitat, and lives in some places, in the Altai, 
for instance, at a very low temperature. It is not the 
cold which caused it to abandon Central Europe, but 
rather the inroads of man and the constant dread of his 
presence. Besides, its disappearance from Europe is rela- 
tively recent. 



age of the mammoth and reindeer. 287 

176. We Cannot Draw a Strict Line between 
the Age of the Mammoth and that of the Rein- 
deer. The age of the reindeer is another open question. 

Here we have a species which is not extinct, but which 
has merely emigrated to other countries. The reindeer 
lives in our days in the Arctic regions. What is con- 
tested is the date of its disappearance from Central 
Europe. "It seems to us, however," says M. Hamard, 
" that it would be easy to come to an understanding on 
this question, if we abstract for a moment from the prej- 
udice that the reindeer is exclusively a quaternary spe- 
cies, and that the quaternary epoch ended long before 
the historical era. We quote the clear description which 
Caesar gives of this animal: 'There is,' he says (in the 
Hercynian Forest), 'an ox similar to a stag, which car- 
ries in the middle of the head, between the ears, one 
single horn, bigger and more straight than those we 
know of, and whose upper extremity is divided into long 
branches similar to palms. Both male and female have 
the same type; the form and shape of their horns are 
the same.' " ' 

Hamard and GeofTroy Saint Hilaire find that this 
description " bears, even in its errors, the traces of direct 
and profound observation." The reindeer is the only 
animal of the stag kind both the male and female of 
which have antlers, the only one which presents a ful- 
ness of the forehead that resembles the ox, and the only 
one whose horns terminate in long, palm-like branches. 
There is, however, in Caesar's description an inexacti- 
tude which evinces superficial observation ; the antlers 
of the reindeer do not project from the middle, but from 
each side of the head. A casual observer might have 
been deceived on account of the divergent disposition of 
the horns, and especially of certain specimens which 

lu Bello Gallico,"vi., 26. 



2 88 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

show a basilar branch that extends in front and gives 
the horns the appearance of having their roots in the 
centre of the forehead. Besides, Caesar speaks of the 
reindeer by name in another passage. The Germans, 
he says, make use of small leather cloaks made of the 
skin of the reindeer. At least, this is the natural trans- 
lation of the words, " parvis, rhenonum tegnmejitis iitiintiir" 
which it is difficult to explain in any other manner. 

177. It is Certain that the Reindeer Was Contem- 
poraneous with Man in Europe. — From the statements 
of Buffon, Cuvier, P. Gervais, in fact of all naturalists that 
are not influenced by the prejudices of the new arch- 
aeological school, the reindeer cannot be classed among 
the animal species which disappeared in prehistoric 
times. These species number about half a dozen, if 
we take into account only well-established facts. But 
let us suppose that they are more than twice as numer- 
ous : what is this compared to the forty or fifty species 
of mammalia and birds which have, to our knowledge, 
become extinct in the course of historic times ? ' If 
the proportion of lost animal species were the same 
in both periods, not ten or fifteen species would have 
disappeared in prehistoric times, but at least one hun- 
dred, because this period must have been three times 
longer than the historical era, according to the current 
chronology. Moreover, the destruction of species 
towards the end of prehistoric times must have been 
much more rapid than in our days, for some species 
fell helpless victims to the first occupants of the soil. 
To be convinced of this we need only remember the very 
rapid extinction of the American buffalo. 

According to Pictet, the post-glacial beds of Europe 
afford ninety -eight species of mammals, of which fifty- 
seven still live there; the remainder are either locally 
1 Pozzy, " La Terre et le Recit Biblique," p. 144. 



MAN AND EXTINCT ANIMAL SPECIES. 289 

or wholly extinct.' According to Boyd Dawkins, in 
Great Britain about twelve pliocene species survived 
the glacial period and reappeared in the British Islands 
in post-glacial times. To these add forty-one species, 
making in all fifty-three, whose remains are found in 
the gravels and caves of the latter period. Of these, in 
the modern period, twenty-eight, or rather more than 
one-half, survive ; fourteen are wholly extinct and eleven 
are locally extinct. 

The results obtained by archaeologists also prove that 
we should not speak about a mammoth or reindeer 
period. These animals, with various other species, were 
more or less contemporary. The carefully made re- 
searches of M. Dupont in seven Belgian caves, distant 
from one another, brought to light the bones of the fol- 
lowing animals, mixed more or less : mammoth, eighteen 
bones; rhinoceros, twenty-nine; cave lion, four; hyena, 
forty-two ; cave bear, one hundred and seven ; reindeer, 
eighty-two. Mr. C. Struckman, treating on the fossil 
remains of the quaternary mammals in the north-west 
of Germany, found in the alluvions of the province of 
Hanover and neighboring countries the remains of fifty- 
five species of undoubted mammals; of these, thirty-five 
belong to the present fauna of said province, twelve 
still live in other countries, and eight have died out 
altogether: these are the mammoth, the one-horned 
rhinoceros, the aurochs, the Irish elk, the cave bear, the 
cave hyena, the mountain lion {Leo barbariis?) , and the 
cave lion, if the last is not, as is very probable, identical 
with our lion. 2 

178. Man Contemporary with Many Extinct Ani- 
mal Species. — That man was contemporary with many 
extinct animals in France and Germany is clearly 

x Pictet "Paleontologie." 

2 " Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1885-1886, p. 258. 

!9 



29O THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

. 

proved. The same fact is established for Lower Austria. 
While Much was building a railroad at Stillfried (1872), 
on the river March, a high wall of loess was cut off 
almost perpendicularly, and in its debris were discov- 
ered many bones, flint implements, coal and ashes. The 
bones, with the exception of pieces of an antler, belong- 
ing to the Cervus nobilis, and of smaller pieces, difficult 
to assign, belonged partly to small, partly to large 
mammoths. Twelve molar teeth, of Avhich two have a 
masticating surface of twenty centimetres in length and 
seven and one-half in breadth, are well preserved, whilst 
the incisors or canine teeth, and many other bones, fell 
apart when they were exposed to the atmosphere. 
However, it was remarked that a great many of them 
had been broken off by human hands, probably to extract 
the marrow, as the early troglodytes used to do, according 
to the general opinion. A small incisor is covered all 
over with deep, connecting scratches, made either inten- 
tionally for the purpose of getting a firmer hold of the 
tooth, or caused by its being used as a mallet. Among 
undoubtedly human implements are the so-called pris- 
matic flint knives, two scrapers, one well shaped, two 
so-called nuclei (stone kernels), from which the knives 
and scrapers were broken off, as also great numbers of 
waste slivers. The finds show very clearly that the im- 
plements, coals, and bones are contemporary. A layer of 
loess was already deposited when man erected his dwell- 
ing-place on the shore of the March ; the layer, however, 
which covered up the old place of encampment is a 
good deal thicker than the lower and more ancient, so 
there cannot be any doubt that man lived with the mam- 
moth in Lower Austria at the time when the loess 

began to form. 1 

The eminent American naturalist, J. W. Dawson, 

* " Jahrbtich der Naturwissenschaften," 1886, pp. 259. 260. 



MAN AND EXTINCT ANIMAL SPECIES. 29 1 

after having shown that the elephant, rhinoceros, hip- 
popotamus, Irish elk, machairodus, cave bear, and cave 
lion all, or nearly all, survived in the human period, 
adds : 

" If we now turn to these animals which are only 
locally extinct, we meet with some strange and, at first 
sight, puzzling anomalies. Some of these are creatures 
now limited to climates much colder than that of Brit- 
ain; others now belong to warmer climates. Conspicu- 
ous among the former are the musk sheep, the elk, the 
reindeer, the glutton, and the lemming; among the lat- 
ter we see the panther, the lion, and the cave hyena. 
That animals now so widely separated as the musk sheep 
of Arctic America and the hyena of South Africa could 
ever have inhabited the same forests seems a dream 
of the wildest fancy, yet it is not difficult to find a proba- 
ble solution of the mystery. In North America, at the 
present day, the puma or American lion comes up to the 
same latitudes with the caribou or reindeer and moose, 
and in Asia the tiger extends its migrations into the 
abodes of boreal animals in the plains of Siberia ; even in 
Europe, within the historic period the reindeer inhab- 
ited the forests of Germany, and the lion extended its 
range nearly as far northward. The explanation lies in 
the co-existence of a densely wooded country with a tem- 
perate climate, the forests affording to southern animals 
shelter from the cold of winter, and equally to the north- 
ern animals protection from the heat of summer. Hence 
our wonder at this association of the animals of diverse 
habitudes as to climate is merely a prejudice, arising from 
the present exceptional condition of Europe. Still, it is 
possible that changes unfavorable to some of these ani- 
mals were in progress before the arrival of man, with 
his clearings and forest fires and other disturbing agen- 
cies. Even in America, the megalonyx, or gigantic 



292 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

sloth, the mammoth, the mastodon, the fossil horse, and 
many other creatures, disappeared before the modern 
period; and on both continents the great post-glacial 
subsidence- or deluge may have swept away some of the 
species. Such a supposition seems necessary to account 
for the phenomena of the gravel and cave deposits of 
England, and Cope has recently suggested it in ex- 
planation of similar storehouses of fossil animals in 
America." : 

The dinornis and epiornis, gigantic birds which for- 
merly lived in New Zealand and Madagascar, have com- 
pletely disappeared in our days. On the island of Rod- 
riguez, in the Indian Ocean, east of the island of Mauri- 
tius, the ornithological fauna seems to have disappeared 
only towards the middle of the last century. It still 
existed in 1730; thirty years later it was on the decrease. 
A sailor who visited this island in 1 760 tells us that the 
solitaire, one of the birds described by Leguat, who 
visited this island in 1807, had become extremely rare. 
Hence we ascribe the date of its disappearance to the 
middle or last half of the eighteenth century. 

From what we have said it is reasonable to conclude 
that it is wrong to draw a line between the mammoth and 
reindeer periods, because they are more or less contem- 
porary; secondly, that the prehistoric and quaternary 
animals could very well have continued to live during 
the historic period, in some part of the East, whither 
they withdrew gradually from western countries ; 
thirdly, that the number of these animals is in reality 
very small, and much inferior to that of the species 
which have disappeared, so to say, under our eyes during 
the last two thousand years. Therefore, instead of prov- 
ing the great antiquity of man, the arguments here ad- 
duced confirm the recent origin of man. 
1 J. W. Dawson, " The Story of the Earth and Man," pp. 302, 303. 



tertiary and quaternary man. 293 

179. (5) Antiquity of Man as Shown by the Ter- 
tiary and Quaternary Findings. — How would the 
ancient historian and archaeologist Hecataeus feel to- 
day in the presence of the galaxy of scientists who have 
shed a halo of light on ancient history and archaeology ! 
He claimed relationship with a divine ancestor in the 
sixteenth degree, and induced the taciturn Hierodulos 
of Thebes to lead him into the inner sanctuary — that 
grand hall where the three hundred and forty-five co- 
lossal wooden statues of earth-born high priests were 
found in unbroken series, who bequeathed their sacred, 
dignity from father to son. Similar feelings must arise 
in the novice when he enters the sacred domain of archae- 
ology and passes through the long series of types which' 
scientists are pleased to call quaternary — the man of Ne- 
anderthal, St. Acheul, Clermont, etc., and again, when one 
of the Archimedes of primitive history opens the inner 
sanctuary, and suddenly shows him the row of tertiary 
men rising upward to himself, or rather descending 
downward to the incomparable — to the primitive pithe- 
coid ! In fact, all the members of our venerable series of 
grandsires have not yet been discovered ; but singularly 
misty forms are already dawning in the extreme horizon, 
and therefore we suggest patience, for soon the sun of 
science will reach its zenith, and then we may warmly 
shake hands with those shaggy old fellows, and being 
free 'from blind, authoritative faith," we may revel in 
knowledge and science. 

180. Meaning of the Terms Tertiary and Quat- 
ernary Man. — But, before going any further, we must 
explain what we understand by tertiary and quaternary 
man. To believe in tertiary and quaternary man is to 
believe in the existence of our species in the respective 
geological epoch which bears that name. 

We know that the history of the earth since the ap- 



294 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

parition of life upon its surface is generally divided into 
four epochs of unequal and decreasing durations, called 
Primary, or Age of Transition, Secondary, Tertiary, and 
Quaternary. The first two, which were incomparably 
the longest, undoubtedly preceded the advent of man. 
Nobody ever pretended seriously to have found in the 
deposits of these periods the least remains of a human 
skeleton, nor the least trace of man's industry. No 
existing animal species goes back to those, remote times, 
and it would be strange indeed were our species to form 
an exception. 

With regard to the quaternary epoch, the most recent 
and shortest of all, it is quite different. It is certain 
that man co-existed with some, at least, of the species 
which characterize the quaternary in France and certain 
parts of Germany; for example, with the elephant called 
mammoth, with the Rhinoceros tichorinus, its regular 
companion, and with the reindeer, which lives to-day in 
other latitudes. But while admitting the existence of 
man in quaternary times, we do not mean on that ac- 
count to go beyond the traditional chronology. The 
quaternary epoch, as it is understood by geologists, 
extended to times which are not so very distant from 
ours, perhaps even to the Christian era, for one of the 
animals which characterize it, the reindeer, as we saw, 
seems to have lived in Caesar's time, in the Hercynian 
forest near the Danube. 

The existence of man in the tertiary epoch would 
involve grave consequences. If it were proved it would 
undoubtedly, according to all the geologists, be incom- 
patible with traditional chronology. The existence of 
tertiary man, it is true, would prove nothing against 
faith, because the so-called Biblical chronology is not 
imposed upon us by the Church. Excellent Catholics 
think that we can extend it indefinitely, for they hold 



THE AGE OF THE ACEROTHERIUM. 295 

the opinion that there are omissions in the Biblical 
genealogies. 

Now let us throw a glance at the arguments which 
are alleged in favor of the apparition of man in the ter- 
tiary epoch. After having done this we will consider 
his appearance in the quaternary epoch. 

181. Tertiary Man. — Some years ago there existed 
a regular "type disease," especially in France and West- 
ern Europe. It has not yet quite died out, for symptoms 
appeared as late as 1884 in the Congress of Blois. 

Archaeology teaches us that man raised himself grad- 
ually from the state of barbarism to civilization ; that he 
passed through a series of industrial phases succeeding; 
one another ; that his implements became more and more 
perfect; at first man employed nothing but stone imple- 
ments, and these gradually gave way to implements made 
of bronze and iron. This is not all. The three ages of 
stone, bronze, and iron are themselves, they pretend, 
divisible into a certain number of sub-periods, all, or 
nearly all, prehistoric and marked, as we shall see later 
on, by industrial progress. The age of stone alone 
comprises seven periods, of which the first two belong, 
we are told, to the geological period called tertiary, the 
following to the quaternary epoch, and the last to the 
beginning of the present epoch. After these follow two 
periods of the bronze age and two periods of the iron 
age; only after all these periods the Roman epoch, the 
historical epoch, properly speaking, opens. All these 
industrial stages represent so many different types of 
primitive mankind. The representatives of this "type 
disease " at present are Mortillet and Hamy. The lat- 
ter divides the Tertiary Age as follows : 

182. (a) The Age of the Acerotherium. 1 — This, 
geologically, is associated w T ith the limestone of Beauce ; 

1 A kind of extinct Sirenia from the early tertiary. 



296 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

paleontologically, with the acerotherium and different 
species of the rhinoceros; archaeological!.} 7 , with the 
scrapers of Thenay. 

183. (b) The Age of the Halitherium. — This is 
geologically distinguished by the sand deposits of Or- 
leanais, an ancient province of France, which forms the 
largest part of the departments of Loir-et-Cher, Loiret, 
and Eure-et-Loir ; paleontologically, by the mastodon, 
dinotherium, halitherium, and. monkey {Hylobates an- 
tiqiiiLs) ; archaeologically, by attempts in the art of pottery 
and by scrapers. 

184. (c) The Age of Elephas Meridionalis. — 
This is geologically distinguished by the sand and gravel 
deposits of St. Prest; paleontologically, by the Elephas 
-meridionalis; archaeologically, by certain spear points, and 
by bones, which show traces of human work. 

185. Inquiry about the Age of the Acerother- 
ium. — It is a law in most countries to demand a passport 
from a stranger who intends to enter or pass through 
them. If this document is not found in proper order, 
he is turned back. Now it happens sometimes that offi- 
cials appointed to inspect these passports do not care 
much whether the papers of travellers are in order or 
not. Certainly, this is wrong, and the reader under- 
stands that a passport in proper order is quite an impor- 
tant thing, except, perhaps, if he met the passport officer 
of the Austro- Italian frontier who, after finding out that 
a traveller had no passport, observed with an air of indif- 
ference : " Well, it is just as good ; if you had a passport, 
of course you would be obliged to show it." However, 
we shall not follow the example of this officer, but firmly 
demand a passport, made out in proper form, and 
authoritatively signed, from this tertiary man, who is a 
stranger to us all. The reason, of course, is that we 
cannot always rely on the mere assertions of people, 



TERTIARY MAX'S PASSPORT. 297 

who, like the officer, are indifferent whether one has a 
passport or not; so we find some archaeologists who 
insist on making us believe many things which do not 
carry authoritative proofs with them. 

186. Tertiary Max's Passport. — Now let us ask: 
What is the condition of the tertiary man's passport, and 
where is the authority therefor? Let us see his bones 
or his works. With regard to the bones, it is generally 
admitted that none can be produced. Some savants 
pretend to have discovered human bones in 1844, on the 
slope of the extinct volcano Denise, near Le Puy (Haute- 
Loire). Here they found human bones in volcanic tufa, 
while in the opposite slope, in a similar site, were dis- 
covered the remains of a tertiary pachyderm (E/cphas 
meridionalis) ; hence, it is claimed, the human bones are 
of the tertiary epoch. However, it is not proved that 
the volcanic debris in both places are derived from the 
same volcanic eruption; on the contrary, J. Robert fur- 
nished proof that the tufa which contained animal 
remains of the tertiary owes its origin not to the vol- 
cano Denise, but to the extinct volcano of St. Ann 
opposite, 1 while the tufa on the opposite slope, besides 
human remains, also conceals the bones of the mammoth 
and other quaternary animals. 

With regard to the skeleton found on the Colle del 
Vento, not far from Savona, in a pliocene stratum, even 
Hamy assures us that " this pretended fossil man from 
the lower pliocene of Savona. appears to have been 
buried in the layer in which it has been found much later 
than the layer itself was formed, to which some natu- 
ralist had assigned it without sufficient proof." 2 Thus 
we are informed only of the works of tertiary man, and 

1 B. Pozzy," La Terre et le Recit Biblique de la Creation," Paris, 
1874, p. 299. 

Precis de Paleontologie Humaine,"p. 63. 



2 «< 



298 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

these are of a very doubtful nature. For a long time 
tertiary man was held up as the most formidable obstacle 
to harmony between science and divine revelation, and 
yet the person who raised this question about tertiary 
man is an excellent French priest, the Abbe Bourgeois. 
To-day this subject, after having caused a good deal of 
excitement among the savants of Europe, may be con- 
sidered as scientifically settled. 

In a geological excursion along a hollow road which 
cuts through the hill on the left shore of the river The- 
nay (Loir-et-Cher), in France, the Abbe Bourgeois, di- 
rector of the College of Pont Levoy, perceived at the 
base of the slope, in a tertiary clay, a fragment of black 
flint. He picked it up, examined it with much emotion 
and curiosity, and believed he saw thereon all the signs 
which indicate the action of man: the engravings, the 
symmetrical grooves, the traces of percussion and wear 
and tear, the action of fire, and, finally, the reproduction 
of certain perfectly known characters. 1 . . . This hum- 
ble flint stone was destined not only to emit sparks of 
fire, but to cause a real tempest of fiery discussions. It 
is unnecessary to relate the consequences of this discov- 
ery further than to mention the prolonged hesitations, 
the incertitudes, the solemn discussions of the savants 
called together to express their views, the hasty conclu- 
sions of some and the determined obstinacy of others. 
However, we shall continue our role as apologists, and 
pass to the doctrinal objection, which may be resumed in 
the form of a dilemma. 

Either the flint instrument belongs to the ancient 
layer, was cut by human hands, and man must have 
existed thousands of centuries ago, or it was fashioned 
by an intermediate being— a being between the anthro- 

1 See the account written by the Abbe Bourgeois himself in the 
"Revue des Questions Scientifiques," October, 1877. 



THE TERTIARY FLINTS. 299 

poid monkey and man. If by the latter, it is a new and 
indisputable proof of universal transformism, and the ani- 
mal descent of man. The adversaries of religious belief 
do not hide their preference for the latter alternative. 

Eloquent apologists and eminent controvertists, 
alarmed by the accounts given by geologists of the 
antiquity of the tertiary strata, admit the possible exist- 
ence of an animal able to invent and preserve fire, to 
cut stone, and to prepare tools. 

With all the respect we owe to such men — our masters 
— we believe we have a right to protest against a useless 
concession, the consequences of which seem perilous. 

187. If the Tertiary Flints are True Instru- 
ments, then They are the Work of Beings Simi- 
lar to Us. — If the tertiary flints are true instru- 
ments, cut, as is pretended, by the help of fire, artificially 
engraved ; if they bear evident traces of intentional work, 
they are the work of beings similar to us — the work of 
man. To admit the contrary would be filling up the 
abyss which separates the rational being from the ani- 
mal ; it would be preparing the way for biological evo- 
lution applied to the soul; for to make implements is 
proper to man, because it is proper to man to reflect, to 
reason, to have general ideas of cause and effect, of the 
end to be attained, etc. By digging up the earth, by 
descending from layer to layer, other wonderful debris 
have been met with, more and more perfect organisms ; 
but it is always the same world of living beings, always 
the same animality. In presence of a roughly-cut flint, 
we are astonished, stop, meditate, and say to ourselves . 
An absolutely new being, a reasonable and free being, 
has lived here millions of years ago. 

If we reject the second alternative, we are face to 
face with the former: that is, in presence of the aston- 
ishing antiquity of man. Grave alternative, truly seri- 



\ 



300 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

ous difficulty, if it were based upon well-established 
facts. It made the eminent Abbe Moigno say : " Indeed, 
I had lost my foothold ; I found myself as drowned in an 
ocean of uncertainty — on the point of being grieved and 
full of anguish. . . . Then I made a new effort in my 
researches, and regained the light." To regain the light 
and the most perfect serenity it will be sufficient to 
expose the results of the latest researches, the most re- 
cent verdict of the prehistoric sciences. 

"About twenty discoveries," says the Abbe Hamard, 
" have been announced successively which proved the 
existence of man in the tertiary epoch. We have heard 
of cut flints, of engraved or perforated bones, and even 
of human skeletons found in the miocene or pliocene. 
The most of these discoveries have not stood atten- 
tive examination. Even M. de Mortillet admits that 
none of the skeleton remains in question is authentic. 
The engraved or perforated bones have been made, not 
by man, but by the teeth of the dog-fish or by other 
marine animals. There remain the flints claimed as the 
work of man. Three localities are said to have fur- 
nished them: the commune of Thenay, the neighbor^ 
hood of Aurillac (Cantal) , the vicinity of Lisbon. Every- 
thing in the flints of Portugal is contested — their cutting, 
their origin, and their age. There is no real guarantee 
of the authenticity of the flints of Cantal, nor of the age 
of the strata to which they are attributed, nor of the 
nature of their cutting." l Professor Hebert, of the Geo- 
logical Institute of Paris, declared repeatedly in public 
that " assertions like those of the Abbe Bourgeois [with 
regard to his finds] are likely to bring science into dis- 
credit." F. Chabas also says: "That the pretended 
stone implements were not fit for use ; some might be 

lu Le Congres de Blois et l'Homme tertiaire," in " La Contro- 
verse et le Contemporain," Nov. and Dec, 1884. 



THE TERTIARY FLINTS. 301 



o l 



taken as piercing instruments, but their point is so short 
that it cannot pierce even a piece of leather." Then he 
directs attention to the laws and forms according to 
which stone cracks when exposed to the air, and con- 
tends that it is very probable that a great number of 
objects which have been held to be human products 
originated in this manner. 1 Indeed, Dr. Ratzel proved, 
from stones exposed to the air and sun, that F. Chabas 
was correct in his views ; for similar slivers, especially 
from flint stones, broke off like the "human products" 
of the Abbe Bourgeois. With regard to the markings 
which, according to the Abbe, were produced by the 
action of fire, Sir John Lubbock was right in saying 
that "the action of fire does not absolutely prove the 
presence of man, as fire may be due to lightning." 

We give here an extract from an unbiassed author, M. 
Cotteau, an eminent French geologist and paleontologist, 
on the slivers of the Abbe Bourgeois, which had already 
caused so much excitement among savants, and were 
supposed to prove the tertiary existence of man. This 
author says : 

'The most interesting question of geology which 
was studied at the Congress of Blois [in 1884] was 
the question of man's existence in the tertiary period. 
. . . Forty members of said Congress, belonging 
partly to the section of anthropology, partly to that of 
geology, made a journey to study the geological situa- 
tion of Thenay and its cut flints. ... At first they 
examined the surroundings and established in a positive 
manner the superposition of the layers. . . . The first 
part of the question was settled ; the situation of Thenay 
is certainly in the deep strata of the tertiary. 

' With regard to the second part, it appears to us that 
we have almost found a definite solution during this excur- 
1 " Revue des Questions Scientifiques," lier annee, p. $65. 



3<D2 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

sion. In spite of the practical diggings on a large tract, 
and the number of flints brought to light ; in spite of the 
very careful researches of the forty members of the Con- 
gress, only two flints offering the appearance of some 
kind of scratchings were met. The cracked flints are 
more numerous, but the discussion showed that the 
cracks attributed to fire and to the action of man may 
have been produced by physical causes unknown to us. 
The greater part of the members who took part in the 
excursion, bearing in mind the enormous antiquity of 
the strata, remained convinced that man did not yet exist 
when they were formed. To prove his existence at so 
remote a time, proofs more convincing are required than 
a few cut flints, the use of which cannot be defined, 
which have no surface for striking, and which offer, as 
evidence of intentional work, only a few irregular 
scratches, undoubtedly due to chance." : 

A distinguished anthropologist, noted for his clear and 
critical mind, writes as follows in the " Revue des Ques- 
tions Scientifiques : " 2 

"After having read this important discussion, I went 
to see the vast deposits of flint clay at Maconais. ... I 
gathered cut flints in various strata of this locality ; some 
have a head, and even traces of scratchings that we 
would not hesitate to attribute to man if these flints 
were found in quaternary ground. Cracked flints, abso- 
lutely identical with those of Thenay, are found by the 
thousands on the surface of our clays. ... It is diffi- 
cult to explain the strong faith of some anthropologists 
except by prejudice. For, certainly, without the sup- 
posed cut flints, nobody would ever have dreamt of 
tertiary man, and this proof being unsatisfactory, the 
hypothesis has no other support." 

Many physicists, many archaeologists, famous uphold- 
1 " Revue Scientifique," Oct. 25, 1884. 2 Jan., 1885. 



THE AGE OF THE HALITHERIUM. 303 

ers of rationalist science, declare that the action of 
water, sand, and wind, the abrupt changes of tempera- 
ture, pressure, etc., can alter the shape of flints and give 
them forms apparently the result of human work. Pro- 
fessor Tyndall possesses a collection of such flints. " If 
they were met," he says, "along with human remains, 
we should class them in some period of the stone age." 
Dr. Virchow expressed the same opinion at the Congress 
of Lisbon, of which he was president, and supported his 
views by analogous facts. He said : " Ten years ago I 
put this question to myself: Can we recognize in a few 
splinters of flint whether their form is or is not the 
result of intention? . . . This question is likely to call 
forth the discussions of several congresses. . . . Here 
we disagree, and there are many naturalists who deny 
that the form of these flints is the work of man. . . . 
For myself I question it, and at the next Congress I will 
submit samples, with all the characters claimed, which 
I collected under conditions such that man could not 
have had anything to do with them." 

188. Inquiry into the Age of the Halitherium. 
— We will leave the age of the acerotherium to find, if 
possible, more solid ground in the age of the halithe- 
rium. Vain hope ! Here we meet in the sand deposits 
of the Orleanais the same doubt-suggesting stones that 
were found at Thenay. But this time the chief piece is 
a stony mass, consisting of a hard gray clay mixed with 
coal, in which small stones are imbedded. The Abbe 
Bourgeois concludes therefrom that man knew the use 
of fire at that early age ; yea, that he made attempts in 
the art of pottery. Hamy is a little more careful ; he 
believes that this mass may have been the product of 
fire accidentally enkindled through human agency. " But 
why by man," asks the Jesuit Father Hummelauer, 
"and not by lightning?" 



304 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

The Abbe Delaunay 3 noticed, at Pouance (Maine-et- 
Loire) , in two fragments of the thigh bones of the hali- 
therium (a fossil whale) deep incisions corresponding to 
those which would be produced with a knife or a saw. 
Here, it seems, we have caught miocene man in flag- 
rante delicto. Hamy sees, in spirit, these primitive French- 
men, standing on about the same level of rudeness as the 
Australian Papuan negroes of to-day, falling greedily 
upon a dead halitherium swept ashore, cutting with stone 
knives its meat from the bones, and then devouring it raw. 
But in this case also the illusion is short. M. Delfortrie 
made the incisions, which are repeated in fossil bones at 
Leognan, near Bordeaux, a subject of his especial stud- 
ies. "We notice them," he writes, "on almost all the 
bones of the Aquitanian miocene,* on the jawbones of the 
halitherium and squalodon, and the ribs and vertebral 
spinals of whales ; the pelves and loricas of turtles are 
literally covered with them." The number awakens 
suspicion. Certainly, either the population of Aquitania 
was very numerous, and then we must be astonished 
that not even a little bone has come to us from all these 
men; or it was not, and then their appetite, which led 
them to gnaw off all the bones in the land, does not 
cause less astonishment. All these incisions, further 
explains M. Delfortrie, are of the same nature. ' Incis- 
ions" are not wanting which one might attribute to 
human effort at first glance ; others, straight and deep, 
look just like those which could be produced with a 
stone implement ; then others follow with a suspicious 
appearance, bent and turned; and every doubt and de- 
ception disappears completely when we look at certain 
parallel, slightly bent strokes which correspond exactly 

1 Let no person in future tell us that the clergy are averse to 
scientific progress, for here we have two famous Abbes who stood 
godfathers to miocene man. 



AGE OF THE ELEPHAS MERIDIONALIS. 30$ 

to the teeth of a predatory fish (Sargus serratus) found 
just there." 1 Even the Abbe Bourgeois became con- 
vinced by Delfortrie's arguments, and abandoned the' 
hypothesis of the Abbe Delaunay. 2 Besides, we do not 
need to go to Leognan in order to find the key of the 
phenomenon of Pouance. In this very place, as in many 
similar places of Chavagnes (Maine-et-Loire), a great 
number of teeth of different fishes of the shark family 
are found ; they had a good time on the dead halitheria 
swept ashore. 3 With regard to the dicroseros bones at 
Sansan (Gers), they have the same value as those of 
Pouance. The incisions in the rhinoceros bones at Billy 
(Allier) G. de Mortillet declares to be merely geological 
impressions. 

189. Inquiry into the Age of the Elephas Meri- 
dionals. — Now let us look at pliocene man. Our 
road leads us to St. Prest, not far from Chartres (Eure- 
et-Loir). Here, in 1863, M. Desnoyers found bones of 
the Elephas meridionalis with oblique incisions, which he 
attributed to man. Sir Charles Lyell became suspicious, 
and caused some fresh animal bones to be put into the 
cage of porcupines in the Zoological Gardens at London,, 
and after a few days the same oblique lines were noticed 
on them—the traces of those gnawers. Sir John Lub- 
bock produced further proof of the pliocene man of St. 
Prest, 4 but only in order to doubt its force forthwith. 
" Among the bones of the deer were several crania, all 
of which have been broken in one way, namely, by a 
violent blow given on the skull between, and at the base 
of, the horns. Mr. Steenstrup has noticed fractures of 

1 Pozzy," La Terre et le Recit Biblique de la Creation, "p. 231 sq. 
" Congres International," sess. 6, Brussels, 1872, p. 91. 
:< Etudes Religieuses et Philosophiques," etc., v. series, vol. x. 
Lyon, Paris, 1876, p. 194^. 

4 " Prehistoric Times," 2d ed., p. 411. 



306 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

this kind in other less ancient skulls of ruminants, and 
at the present day some of the northern tribes treat the 
skulls of ruminants in the same manner. Through the 
courtesy of M. Desnoyers I. have had the opportunity of 
examining some of the scratched bones from St. Prest. 
The markings fully bear out the description given by 
him, and some of them at least appeared to me to be 
probably of human origin; at the same time, and in the 
present state of our knowledge, I am not prepared to 
say that there is no other manner in which they might 
have been produced." 

The pliocene fossil found near the Arno, which showed 
incisions similar to those of St. Prest, is no better 
authenticated. The perforation of the carcharodon teeth 
found in the pliocene crag of Suffolk, according to J. 
M. Hughues, Quatrefages, and Hamy, was probably 
effected by natural causes, for instance, by some animal. 
The discovery of stone implements in gravel beds in 
the bluffs of the Delaware River, near Trenton, New 
Jersey, raised the question of the antiquity of man in 
America, as these gravel deposits were believed to have 
been formed by glacial action. The genuineness of 
these pliocene remains, however, is far from, well estab- 
lished. Even on November 2 1 , 1 876, Professor Hughues, 
in a speech before the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 
expressed his doubts about the existence of man in pre- 
glacial times. J. C. Southall says: "Dr. Abbott (the 
person that first called attention to the relics m the 
Trenton gravel) was quite astonished to find together 
implements of such various characters of workmanship ; 
he concluded that the polished pieces descended from 
the Indians who lived on the Delaware a few centuries 
ago, the rougher, on the contrary, from the Autochthones 
of the paleolithic time. But this is a wrong conclusion 
altogether, as there cannot be any doubt that all the 



TERTIARY MAN NEVER EXISTED. 307 

pieces come from the same time." ' When Dr. Abbott 
attributes to pieces found in the same place a higher 
antiquity or different epochs, merely because they are 
more or less rudely worked, his opinion cannot gain 
our confidence. 

190. Tertiary Man Never Existed.— It is certain 
from all the evidence, pro and con, found up to the 
present that pliocene man has failed to furnish proofs 
of his existence. But there is another ray of hope in 
the distance. J. Capellini, an Italian archaeologist, tells 
us that he found in Tuscany, at Monte Aperto, not far 
from Siena, in a blue pliocene clay, fish skeletons 
which undoubtedly bear traces of human action. A 
number of paleontologists and zoologists acknowl- 
edged them as such. The discoverer exposed the pieces 
before the Congress at Buda-Pesth in 1876. After 
examining them, Dr. Broca declared that, while he re- 
fused to admit man's existence in the tertiary period 
as long as it was based on the finds of Abbe Bourgeois 
and others, he now for -the first time felt his doubts dis- 
appear. Warning his associates to be careful, and 
advising them not to express a definite judgment on a 
fact implying such important consequences, he at the 
same time expressed, his inclination to let these rib 
incisions pass as proof of the existence of tertiary man. 
Even Quatrefages shared the views of Capellini. But 
alas ! the bones found by Capellini. met the same fate 
in the course of time as the flint implements of the 
Abbe Bourgeois and so many others. To-day one of 
the greatest naturalists of France, the Marquis de 
Nadaillac, declares the rib incisions on the bones discov- 
ered by Capellini to be nothing but traces of the teeth 
of some animal. 

We may sum up the result of our inquiry in the 
1 "The Epoch of the Mammoth,' London, 1878, p. 237. 



308 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

following propositions : (i) The proof of the existence 
of miocene man has not been furnished so far. (2) The 
existence of pliocene man, according to the present 
state of science, cannot be maintained with any proba- 
bility. 

191. Quaternary Man. — Now let us look for man's 
existence in the quaternary age. But before doing this, 
we first put the question : What is tertiary and what is 
quaternary? Lyell, who has many followers, distin- 
guishes four sub-divisions in these tertiary epochs, to 
which he gives rather strange names. He calls the old- 
est strata of the cainozoic period the eocene, that is to 
say, the dawn of a new period ; the two following sub- 
divisions he calls miocene and pliocene ; that is, less re- 
cent and more recent. The most recent strata he for- 
merly called pleistocene; that is, the most recent. In 
his later writings, instead of this name he makes use of 
the word post-pliocene, and includes the post-pliocene 
and the recent strata under the name post-tertiary. I 
will mention only the simplest among the countless other 
divisions and names: the eogene formation, neogene 
formation (molasse), and the diluvium. 

This brings us to the question : In what relation do 
these divisions stand to each other, and which are 
included in the tertiary and which in the quaternary 
period? In fixing the boundaries between the two 
periods, Lyell relied principally on the comparison and 
the percentage of shells. It is evident that this mode 
of proceeding is arbitrary ; even in the oldest tertiary 
strata there are shells similar to those now existing. 
Meyer classes the tertiary formations according to the 
different kinds of mammals found in them; but even by 
this means no definite line can be drawn between the ter- 
tiary and diluvian formations. 

" It cannot be denied," he says, " that there are places 



TERTIARY AND QUATERNARY. 3O9 

where the mammalia of the molasse (miocene) period 
are found intermixed with those of the diluvian forma- 
tions, although usually these formations and those 
of the molasse can be clearly distinguished." "It is 
most probable," says Reusch, "that the diluvian (the 
name diluvian is universally given by modern geol- 
ogists to a whole geological period and formation 
which is supposed to be the last of the many geolog- 
ical revolutions that have been produced by violent 
eruptions of water after the ice age) was not a simul- 
taneous and general inundation of the whole earth- 
modern geologists believe that instead of this a series 
of geological events took place which occurred partly 
m the human and partly in the pre-human period " 
"Further," says Reusch, "there is no proof of a clear 
separation between the primeval and the recent fauna 
and flora; on the contrary, it seems as if, by degrees, 
long before the first appearance of man, many species 
of plants and animals had died out, and had been 
replaced by others ; and that this took place in conse- 
quence of geological convulsions, changes of climate, 
and other causes, and occurred at different times and in 
different countries." 

From what we have said it follows that no strict line can 
be drawn between the tertiary and quaternary epochs 
This conclusion is confirmed by the Jesuit Father Hum- 
melauer/who proves that it is highly probable in the 
iirst place that the pliocene and the ice age were con- 
temporaneous, at least for central Europe; secondly 
that on the whole we have to conceive the post-pliocene 
or diluvian as contemporaneous with the pliocene or 
ice age. 

Hummelauer bases his hypothesis upon the following 
facts: In the basin of Balerna (Tessin) and in the 
1 Cf. "Stimmen atis Maria-Laach," 1878, vol. i., pp. 49 o, 493 . 



310 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

vicinity of Eucciago (province of Como) A. Stoppani 
found stones and blocks which, on account of their 
being ground, he recognized as moraines from the ice 
a^e, & mixed up with a blue, incontestably pliocene 
clay. While the moraines consisted of primitive rocks 
from the Alps, especially from Monte Rosa, over forty 
Mediterranean or pliocene shell species were found in 
the clay. That the soil where these observations were 
made was virgin soil, is firmly established. Among 
other professional men, the eminent and learned Desor, 
Martins, and Schimper, who deserve great praise for 
their inquiries into the ice age, have acknowledged 
the correctness of Stoppani 's observations. The glaciers 
of the Swiss ice age extended their moraines up to a 
pliocene sea, which just at that time covered the Lom- 
bardic plain and reached to the foot of the Alps. Here 
we have a striking proof , confirmed by other facts, that the 
pliocene and the ice age were contemporaneous, at least 
in central Europe. Pliocene flora and fauna developed 
in low grounds ; pliocene waters formed their deposits on 
the ground beds of the sea, while the glaciers of the ice 
age reached their greatest extension. "If it is once 
proved," remarks Dr. J. A. Bianconi, "that the lake 
which extended to Balerna existed in the ice age, then 
it is also proved that the torrents of Setta and Reno, 
which flow in pliocene soil, are torrents of the ice 
age. Thus pliocene soil appears in quite a new light, 
namely, as soil formed in the bosom of the sea mostly 
from the ground rubbish of the glacial epoch. Two 
phenomena which until the present were conceived as 
separate are brought into such close relations as to melt, 
so to say, into a single one." ' After a careful inquiry 
into the primitive Swiss world, Dr. O. Heer drew 
'"Materiaux pour l'Histoire Primitive et Naturelle de 
l'Homme," Toulouse, 1876, vol. i., p. 230. 



PLIOCENE AND POST-PLIOCENE. 3 I I 

attention to the fact that pliocene strata, properly so 
called, were wanting between the eocene, miocene, and 
post-pliocene slate coal. He believed he had found the 
reason for this in the grinding activity of the glaciers, 
which might have carried off as grinding rubbish the 
existing pliocene formations. From what we have said 
it appears that the reason for this may have been simply 
that there was no pre-glacial pliocene in Switzerland. 

192. Relation between the Pliocene and Post- 
Pliocene. — It is likewise difficult to establish the rela- 
tion between the post-pliocene or diluvian and the plio- 
cene or ice age. 

" There is no sharp line," says E. Lartet, " between the 
tertiary and the diluvian formations." The same 
great mammals lived before, during, and after the gla- 
cial age. The extension of the glaciers, which cannot 
be denied, did not bring any essential changes in the 
fauna and flora. Unessential changes are not excluded, 
but pliocene and post-pliocene do not appear anywhere 
as two separate periods in the earth's history. Hence 
we must conceive the post-pliocene or diluvian as con- 
temporaneous, on the whole, with the pliocene or ice age. 
The diluvian in the main is the grinding product of the 
glacial epoch, or of those submersions and elevations 
about which we spoke in another chapter, and apart from 
the glaciers. We said these formations were " on the 
whole" contemporaneous. Locally, the pliocene, ice age, 
and post-pliocene may appear in some places as three 
epochs separate in time ; in certain places a pliocene 
flora and fauna may have first developed itself, been 
afterwards removed by the advance of the glaciers, and 
when these retreated, may have returned, very little or 
not at all changed. We can hardly attribute a general 
chronological meaning to that triple division. 

Thus, inside of these formations there is no room for 



312 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

the geological separation of the tertiary and quaternary 
periods. The appearance of man does not mark such a 
separation, because geology has not yet settled finally 
the date of his appearance; there is room for such a 
separation between the diluvium and the alluvium, 
which is acknowledged to be later. Here, at least, great 
catastrophes have drawn a marked geological boundary. 1 
About the latter Dawson says : 

193. Powerful Catastrophes. — "It seems not im- 
probable that it was when the continents had attained, to 
their greatest extension, and when animal and vegetable 
life had again overspread the new land to its utmost 
limits, that man was introduced on the eastern conti- 
nent, and with him several mammalian species, not 
known in the pliocene period, and some of which, as 
the sheep, the goat, the ox, and the dog, have ever since 
been his companions and humble allies. These men, 
at least in the west of Europe, were the 'paleolithic' 
men, the makers of the oldest flint implements; and, 
armed with these, they had to assert the mastery of man 
over broader lands than we now possess, and over many 
species of great animals now extinct. In thus writing, 
I assume the accuracy of the inferences from the occur- 
rence of worked stones with the bones of post-glacial 
animals, which must have lived during the condition of 
our continents above referred to. If these inferences are 
well founded, not only did man exist at this time, but 
man not even varietally distinct from modern European 
races. But if man really appeared in Europe in the 
post-glacial era, he was destined to be exposed to one 
great natural vicissitude before his permanent establish- 
ment in this world. The land had reached its maximum 
elevation, but its foundations, ' standing in the water 

1 Hummelauer, " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," vol. xiv., pp. 49 2 ~ 
494- 



MAN TOWARD THE END OF THE ICE AGE. 3 1 3 

and out of the water,' were not yet securely settled, and 
it had to take one more plunge-bath before attaining its 
modern fixity. This seems to have been a comparatively 
rapid subsidence and re-elevation, leaving but slender 
traces of its occurrence, but changing to some extent the 
levels of the continents, and failing to restore them fully 
to their former elevation, so that large areas of the lower 
grounds still remained under the sea. If, as the greater 
number of geologists now believe, man was then on the 
earth, it is not impossible that this constituted the deluge 
recorded in that remarkable ' log-book ' of Noah, pre- 
served to us in Genesis, and of which the memory re- 
mains in the traditions of most of the nations. This 
is at least the geological deluge which separates the 
post-glacial period from the modern, and the earlier 
from the later prehistoric period of the archaeologists." * 

194. Man toward the End of the Ice Age. — 
That man already lived in Europe toward the end of 
the ice age, i.e., in an epoch when mighty glaciers 
covered a great part of the European continent, when 
animals of the cold North and warm South roamed plains 
without ice, must be considered as an incontestable fact. 
For even if we doubt, with the careful Dawkins, that 
most eminent investigator of caves, that any of the 
skulls found in Europe belong to quaternary times, 
nevertheless a great number of witnesses remain which 
evidently prove man's presence at that time. The great 
archaeological find which was made in the year 1886, 
near the Bodensee, not far from the Abbey of Schus- 
senried, is alone sufficient to prove the existence of dilu- 
vian or quaternary man. 

Lately, Penk made minute investigations in the 
localities in which, until now, unquestionable remains 

*J. W.Dawson, "The Story of the Earth and Man," pp. 289, 
290. 



3 H THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

of quaternary man have beenfotmd, and arrived at some 
very bean tif til results. 

It is known that the glaciers of the ice (quaternary) 
age were subject to considerable fluctuations; colder 
periods, during which the masses of ice moved forward, 
were succeeded by warmer ones, during which they with- 
drew. The first periods of the ice age are the glacial 
periods, properly speaking; the later, that is, the periods 
near the end of the ice age, are the so-called inter-glacial 
periods. Both periods are authenticated by the presence 
of northern (reindeer, glutton) and southern (mammoth, 
hippopotamus) animals. Man was contemporary with 
both animal groups; his remains are found, for instance, 
at Taubach, Thuringia, with the animals of warmer 
climates, of the inter-glacial period; at Schussenried 
with those of the glacial age. At the time of the great- 
est extension of the glaciers, between the great ice-fields 
of Northern Europe, which radiated from Scandinavia 
and the glacial streams of the Alps, advancing towards 
Central Germany, only a small strip of land in Germany 
was uncovered by ice. During the ice age this was the 
only habitable spot for man and animal, surrounded by 
glaciers ; it is the only territory where Ave find human 
remains. On the other hand, all places in which human 
remains are found in countries which were buried during 
the ice age under the inland ice belong to a later post- 
glacial period, when mankind had already given up the 
huntsman's life for agriculture and the breeding of cat- 
tle, in the so-called neolithic time. This is the reason 
why France is much richer in quaternary human remains 
than Germany. The latter country, at the time of the 
greatest extension of the glaciers, was covered with ice 
over much more than one -half its territory, while in 
France, on the contrary, glaciers covered only one-fiftieth 
part of the area. In the North German lowlands, in the 



QUATERNARY AND DILUVIAL MAN. 3 15 

highlands of South Germany, we do not find any human 
remains of the quaternary epoch, for the glacier districts 
and the localities where we meet with remains of quater- 
nary men exclude each other, because the glaciation 
and the appearance of man took place simultaneously. 

Now, on examining the distribution of the places where 
human remains are found, we remark that they lie not 
only in the non-glacier districts, but also — and they are 
the most remarkable here — in the so-called older mo- 
raines. For the glaciers of the ice age show chiefly 
two extensions of the ice, marked by the so-called ter- 
minal moraines, between which lies a time of recession, 
an inter-glacial period. The former extension of the 
ice reached further down the valley than the latter. 
Hence all glaciated districts are surrounded by a double 
wall of moraines, an older exterior and a younger inte- 
rior one. The places where human remains are found 
are outside the older wall, and also between the older 
and younger. From these facts it follows that quater- 
nary (paleolithic) man did not precede the latter (less 
extensive) glacial period ; he rather lived during the 
inter-glacial and during the last glacial period, hence in 
a warmer as well as in a colder time, 1 as is also clearly in- 
dicated by the varying character of the animal fauna 
whose remains are found together with those of man. 
With the end of the last glacial period the early quater- 
nary period ceases and the alluvium begins, introducing 
the men of the later stone age (neolithic time). 2 

195. Existence of Quaternary and Diluvial Man. 
— From the foregoing the attentive reader will see that 
it is proven that man lived during the quaternary and 

1 To-day it is almost the unanimous opinion of geologists that 
there were at least two glacial periods. This is certainly true 
of Sweden and Norway. 

2 " Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1886-1887, PP- 34-8, 349. 



316 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 



J 



diluvial periods. M. de Nadaillac concludes the first 
part of his studies of the first men and prehistoric 
times thus: "The facts abundantly answer the objec- 
tions against the reality of prehistoric discoveries. . . . 
A simple flint, cut by man, is as unanswerable proof of 
his existence as his skeleton would be. To-day the 
number of human bones incontestably dating back to 
the quaternary epoch and paleolithic times is consider- 
able enough to allow us to affirm that man lived in Eu- 
rope with the great bears, the great feline species, the 
mammoths, etc., when the physical and climatological 
conditions were absolutely different from those now 
existing. . . ." 1 

196. (6) Antiquity of Man Judged by His In- 
dustrial Progress. — This is another argument brought 
forward in support of man's great antiquity. Like the 
other assertions, it has no foundation in fact, as we shall 
presently show. 

Archaeologists teach us that man raised himself gradu- 
ally from the state of barbarism to the state of civilization ; 
that he progressively passed through a series of indus- 
trial phases; that his implements, at first of the simplest 
and roughest description, were gradually perfected; 
stone, the first material employed, made room for bronze, 
and iron succeeded bronze. This is not all. The three 
ages of stone, bronze, and iron have been divided into 
a certain number of sub-periods, and all, or nearly all, 
are ascribed to prehistoric times. 

197. Mortillet's Divisions of the Stone Age. — 
The stone age alone, according to Mortillet's school, 
comprises seven sub-periods. The first two belong to 
the geological period, called tertiary; the following to 
the quaternary, and the last to the beginning of the 
present epoch. After this there come two periods of the 

1 Nadaillac, " Les Premiers Hommes," chap, iii., Con elusion* 



FIVE TYPES OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 3 1/ 

bronze age and two periods of the iron age ; after all 
these the Roman period, the only properly historical one, 
begins. 

These divisions are based upon the hypothesis that 
a considerable time must elapse before man — if there 
was such a being as man in the proper sense of the word — 
could pass from the savage to the, civilized state. Mor- 
tillet's various types of primitive mankind may be reduced 
to the five following : 1 . Type of St. Acheul (Somme) ; 
2. Type of Moustier (Dordogne) ; 3. Type of Solutre 
(Saone-et-Loire) ; 4. Type of La Madeleine (Dordogne) ; 
5. Type of Robbenhausen (Switzerland). These types 
have an archaeological foundation ; that is, they rest on 
various finds, such as flint knives, scrapers, spears, etc. 

198. Five Types of Primitive Man. — The archae- 
ologists who have adopted Mortillet's view conceive the 
primitive man of St. Acheul — the first type — as on the 
lowest scale of human development. He knew, indeed, 
how to give an edge to stone, but he did not know how 
to fasten it to a handle, in order to increase the strength 
of his blows. When he wished to build a hut out of the 
branches of a tree, he sharpened a stone in order to cut 
off the larger branches, and when this rude implement 
became blunt and useless, he sharpened another stone 
for the same purpose. With a cudgel in his hand he 
fought against wild beasts, and as the man of St. Acheul 
looked greatly like a gorilla, a chimpanzee, or a baboon, 
he was obliged to be very careful not to get mixed up 
with these animals and mistake them for individuals of 
his own race. But when the man of Moustier — the sec- 
ond type — learned how to fasten a handle to his sharp 
stone, he became a much-feared warrior, and went forth 
to conquer, armed with a spear and a battle-axe. How- 
ever, all these implements were yet very imperfect. 
The man of Solutre — the third type — knew enough to 



3 18 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

give a point to his laurel-shaped spear and to sharpen 
the edges. He also exchanged the grater for a regular 
scraper, but could not yet make any engravings on stone. 
Now conies the man of La Madeleine — the fourth type — 
who abandoned stone for bone and horn, made imple- 
ments of reindeer antlers elaborately carved, sometimes 
with admirably designed figures of animals thereon. 
Very probably the man of La Madeleine already 
farmed a little, for he had mortars for grinding wheat. 
However, in spite of the great progress man continually 
made, it is strange that our ancestors of La Madeleine 
did not succeed in giving to the stone hammer a flat 
face instead of a half-round one. Harpoons he now 
worked beautifully, and fishing must have become a 
source of pleasure for him, rather than a means of ob- 
taining his livelihood ; of course, Mortillet does not tell 
us this, but he says the man of La Madeleine knew how 
to make needles. Whether his ancestors had attained 
this high degree of progress or not, Ave get no informa- 
tion from Mortillet' s previous types. Henceforth primi- 
tive man's progress is very rapid in every respect. The 
man of Robbenhausen — the fifth and last type — invented 
the art of pottery. He even learned to gamble, it seems, 
for the type of Robbenhausen had pieces of ivory, on 
which lines at different distances were marked. Very 
probably they indicate gambling sticks, like those of the 
modern Haidas on the west coast of America ; or did the 
man of Robbenhausen use these things for calculation, 
and keep accounts? 

While Mortillet 's system found many ardent adher- 
ents, especially in France, it met with as many vehe- 
ment opponents, and, indeed, his subdivisions are not 
only without foundation, but are opposed to well-estab- 
lished facts. His different industrial types are mostly 
found mixed up in the same layer of earth. When they 



THE AGES OF STONE, BRONZE, AND IRON. 319 

are superposed, it is often in the order contrary to that 
which Mortillet's theory requires. Thus, to quote only 
the most recent example, A. Gaudry has found in the 
grotto of Montgaudier (Charente) the industry of La 
Madeleine associated with the quaternary animals con- 
sidered to be the most ancient (rhinoceros, lion, cave 
bears) , and superposed on fauna apparently less ancient 
than the times when the reindeer, bison, and horse flour- 
ished. 

199. The Ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron are 
not Successive. — The mistake of Mortillet's school is 
that it considers the ages of stone, bronze, and iron as 
successive, whereas they were more or less contempo- 
rary. There can be no doubt that for the most part 
they succeeded one another in the order named. Men 
used stone and bone before they used metal. Neverthe- 
less, the use of stone long survived the introduction of 
bronze and iron. 

Therefore we must not assign every stone or non- 
metallic implement to the stone, age, for stone imple- 
ments have been used at the same time as those made of 
metal, and it cannot be proved that any nation, or series 
of nations, passed through these three periods contem- 
poraneously or successively, and thus we must not 
strictly distinguish one from the other. 

"Spears with points of stag's horn," says O. Fraas, 
"arrows with sharp flint heads, and especially stone 
axes, stone chisels, and stone hammers are found among 
the Germans, even down to the time of the Franks, and 
the same is true of races well known to the historians of 
the classical age. According to Herodotus, Ethiopians 
accompanied the army of Xerxes who were so savage 
that they possessed only weapons of stone and bone, 
and who were dressed in the skins of wild beasts : they 
had long bows made of the ribs of palm leaves, and 



320 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

reed arrows with pebble points; their javelins were 
pointed with the horns of gazelles." 1 

Five hundred years later Tacitus mentions tribes, 
whom he calls Fenni, and of whom he says: "They 
have no (iron) weapons. Their only means of attack 
are arrows, to which, having no iron, they give a 
bone point." "The Homeric heroes," says Vogt, 'who 
knew bronze, or rather copper and iron, in spite of this 
used to hurl huge stones at one another's heads, and 
the sling was, until not very long ago, a regular 
weapon. It is proved by several facts that stone imple- 
ments, after they were no longer in general use, were 
used at religious ceremonies, because it was supposed 
that the metals, the preparation of which required 
much human work, were to a certain extent unclean." 
In Sweden, with the exception of a few arrows of bronze, 
the missile weapons were all made of stone, and these 
are found alongside of handsomely worked swords and 
other bronze weapons. Metal was probably too costly to 
be generally used for missile weapons. 3 Besides, it is 
quite possible that in many ancient nations only the 
leaders, the rich and powerful men, had metal weapons, 
whilst the common soldiers had for the most part weapons 
of stone, bone, and horn, just as in the Middle Ages 
only the knights wore steel armor. 

The theory of widely separate ages for old and new 
stone tools, and for bronze and iron, is one of those sci- 
entific fancies which further investigation overthrows. 
To use the words of the Duke of Argyle : " There is no 
proof whatever that such ages existed in the world." 4 
"The negroes of Central and South Africa," writes 

1 O. Fraas, " Die alten Hohlenbewohner," p. 30. 

2 " Archiv fair Anthropologic," vol. i., p. 8. 
"Nilson," Die Ureinwohner," etc., p. 89. 
4 " Primeval Man," p. 181. 



THE AGES OF STONE, BRONZE, AND IRON. 32 I 

Lenormant, " have never known bronze, and work hardly 
any copper. Instead of this, they manufacture iron 
wares in large quantities, and for this purpose make use 
of a process which was not communicated to them from 
the outside. Hence they themselves discovered the 
method of manufacturing iron, and when they gave up 
the use of stone implements they passed to the manu- 
facture of this metal." * Iron ore, as Sir Samuel Baker 
informs us, is so common in Africa, and of a kind so 
easily reducible by heat, that its value might well be 
discovered by the rudest tribes. 2 

Aside of the facts above quoted, we will add the fol- 
lowing testimony. Caesar tells us 3 that the Gauls, when 
besieging Alesia (52 B.C.), made use of stones and peb- 
bles ; Pliny, that the barbarians of the north had spears 
pointed with the horn of the aurochs ; 4 Varro, that in 
order to grind the grain they employed, as is done in 
Spain to-day, a plate armed with stone teeth ; 5 an epic 
poem of the fifth century describes two warriors battling 
with stone axes; 6 St. Ouen, bishop of Rouen in the sev- 
enth century, speaks of flint hatchets in his " Life of St. 
Eligius." The annals of Ireland make mention of pro- 
jectiles of stone on the occasion of a battle against the 
Danes, near Limerick, about the year 920. According 
to William of Poitiers, similar projectiles were used at 
the battle of Hastings in 1066. It even appears that, 
more than a century later, the Scots of Wallace made 
use of stone arms. 

The Mexicans and Peruvians, when first visited by 
the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, were familiar with 
the working of copper as well as of gold, although totally 



1 << 



3 «< 
5 << 



Die Anfange der Cultur," vol. i., p. 57. 

Cf. C. Geikie, " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., p. 135. 

De Bello Gallico," vii., 81. 4 Ibid., ii., 43. 

De Re Rustica," i., 52. c Ampere, " Histoire Litteraire." 
21 



322 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

ignorant of iron; they retained for common purposes 
many of the primitive stone weapons and implements. 
Greece passed from its bronze to its iron age within the 
period embraced in its literary history ; and the history 
of the art of working iron is traceable with tolerable 
clearness in the early history of Rome, that is to say, up 
to the time when the Romans came in contact with the 
Transalpine barbarians. 

Stone, moreover, is rare in some countries, as, for 
example, in Mesopotamia, and hence it is not surprising 
to find stone implements of a very rude character co-ex- 
isting there with advanced civilization in agriculture 
and commerce. 1 Each " age" in fact runs into the other 
and tools of stone, bronze, copper, and iron were used 
at the same time in not a few places. For instance, a 
well-made bronze pin was found on the Isle of St. Jean, 
near Macon, France, which till then had yielded only 
remains of the polished stone period, and M. Chabas 
found iron under similar circumstances elsewhere. - 
The ao-e of bronze must be limited more and more, 
says Professor Desor. Iron is found throughout the so- 
called a<^e of bronze. In Holland, tumuli known as 
hunnebedden (the graves of the Hunni) are common. 
Beneath a layer of soil are found rough casings of 
unhewn stone covering chambers of stone, regularly 
squared and smooth, with a flooring of broken granite. 
Under this funeral urns are met with, as well as numer- 
ous flint tools and weapons, such as polished hatchets, 
chisels, arrow-heads, hammers, etc. Some of these are 
rough, that is, of the oldest age; others are partly pol- 
ished, still others polished perfectly. Along with these 
occur samples of pottery, often of elegant shapes, and 
finely ornamented by means of instruments of wood or 
'Rawlinson, " Two Great Monarchies," pp. 119. ^-°- 
'"Etudes," p. 552- 



THE AGES OF STONE, BRONZE, AND IRON. 323 

bone. Fifty of these barrows have been opened without 
finding any trace of metal in them, and yet scientific 
men are of opinion that they are not older than the 
Roman period, when the country began to rise above 
the vast floods which till then had covered it nearly 
every year. Holland and the neighboring low countries 
seem, indeed, to have been formed from the vast beds of 
soil worn off the Alps and other mountains by the glaciers, 
which formerly reached to the North Sea, but had now 
retreated to Switzerland, and from deposits by the 
waters of the Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt, Ems, and Yssel. 
At first only the sand-hills and other elevations, natural 
or artificial, were habitable, and these in Caesar's time 
were so many small islands, whose savage {silvatici) and 
brave inhabitants were believed to live on fish and the 
eggs of birds. 1 About the beginning of our era the 
Batavians took possession of the country, but the Hunni 
lingered among them even during the Roman period, 
and have left these tumuli apparently remotely prehis- 
toric, but, to give the words of M. Pleyte, dating from 
the commencement of our era to a.d. 500. 

The Chevalier de Rossi has found equally striking 
proofs of the lateness of the stone age in Italy. 2 "The 
whole evidence," he says, "proves to demonstration that 
the neolithic age was very near to historical times." 
This conclusion is confirmed by the discoveries so fre- 
quently made, and every day becoming more numer- 
ous, of stone weapons mixed with objects of bronze. 
C. Geikie found early uncoined money (aes rude) along 
with polished stone weapons; and a number of flint 
knives have been obtained from Etruscan graves. 
Indeed, a piece of coined copper money, marking a 

'"De Bello Gallico." 



2 << 



Comptes Rendus du Congres International d'Archeologie 
Prehistorique," 1871, p. 464. 



324 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

still later period, has been found in an Etruscan tomb 
alongside of a stone knife, undoubtedly of the neoli- 
thic or new stone period. Not less striking are the 
results of excavations on the sites of the Romano-Gallic 
cities in France. Thus at Bibracte, the largest, richest, 
and most important town of the^Edui, 1 scientific explor- 
ers have discovered remains of pottery, jewelry, orna- 
mental work, work on metal and coins, mingled with 
flint arrow-heads, polished stone axes, and a flint knife. 
The same results have been obtained on the site of Ger- 
govia, near Clermont; weapons, vases, and large jrins of 
bronze, pieces of jewelry, and Gallic coins have been 
found along with stone knives, arrow-heads, axes, etc.' 2 
Similar stone weapons and tools have also been met with 
on the site of Alesia, in the Jura, in conjunction with 
the skeletons of Gauls, their personal ornaments, and 
weapons of bronze and iron, and even the remains of 
their armor. 

The lateness of the stone period has received further 
illustration by the discovery that the ancient Egyptians, 
though they already possessed and used all the metals, 
and enjoyed a high civilization, systematically used 
stone tools for mining and other purposes. Brugsch 
found such stone instruments along with remains of 
ancient pottery in the turquois mines of Midian. 3 
They are met with, moreover, so often throughout 
Egypt, that it appears as if they continued to be 
used freely in common life. 4 M. Mariette found 
in the tombs of the ancient Egyptian empire at Saq- 
qara, and the pyramids, bas-reliefs showing work- 
men cutting wood with a tool exactly resembling the 

1 " De Bello Gallico," i. and iv. 

2 Chabas, " Etudes," p. 377- 

3 Brugsch, " Wanderungen nach den Turquis Minen," p. 71. 

4 " Leisure Hour," 1870, p. 423 sq. 



THE AGES OF STONE, BRONZE, AND IRON. 325 

stone axes of the Polynesian Archipelago. There is a 
stone knife in the British Museum bearing an inscription 
which shows that it is not older than the sixth century 
before Christ, another at Athens has a Greek inscrip- 
tion, while a third, at Copenhagen, has one in Runic 
characters. There is, indeed, no distinct stone age in 
Egypt, but stone tools are found abundantly along with 
those of iron and other metals, as if the Egyptians used 
them for many of the same purposes, and almost as 
commonly, as the barbarous peoples around them, who 
did not know the metals or were unable to procure them. 
Mr. Keast Lord found in his minute explorations of the 
mines of Midian that the veins of metal had been 
worked with stone tools exclusively, many of which he 
brought away with him; and he mentions, also, that ow- 
ing to geological changes the lake from which the miners 
received water, both for drinking and for their mining 
operations, is now gone, though the shells of the fresh- 
water mussel, used for food by the miners, still remain 
in the old lake beds. Moreover, their huts of rough 
dry stone without mortar, bearing every proof of the 
highest antiquity, are still standing ; yet the inscriptions 
show incontestably that these works, and the lakes them- 
selves, date within the strictly historical period, and 
even as late as the twelfth century before Christ. But 
for these inscriptions, the mines would certainly have 
been referred to unknown antiquity, accompanied as 
they are by the vanished lakes and archaic huts. But 
it cannot be said that the stone period is even yet 
a matter of the past, for M. Mariette, having noticed 
his Arab laborers shaving their heads with razors of flint, 
and the Arabs of Qournah having showed him Bedouin 
lances tipped with flint, justly says that he fancied him- 
self transported to the stone period, and arrived at the 
conclusion that the age of stone survived in Egypt under 



326 THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. 

the Pharaos, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Arabs, and 
finally that, in a certain measure, it survives in our day. 1 

We must also take into consideration that some na- 
tions, for a time, retrograded in culture on account of 
external circumstances; thus the Polynesians, whose 
stone axes we mentioned before, are a branch of the 
Malay race, which separated from the Malays only a few 
centuries before Christ, and must have been well 
acquainted with the working of metals. But the island 
groups of the Pacific Ocean, which they first peopled, 
did not furnish any metals, and thus after a few genera- 
tions the secret of metallurgy was lost; consequently 
wood and stone were once more brought into requisition 
as materials for weapons and tools. 2 The same can be 
said about the Guanchoes, an offshoot of the Vandals, on 
the Canary Islands, who lost the use of iron and boats. 3 
The Finlanders, on the contrary, learned the working 
of bronze in their northern home. 

200. Conclusion: Single Finds of Stone or Iron 
do not Establish a Chronological Order. — In con- 
clusion, the practical lesson which the archaeologist must 
draw from all we have said is: Single finds of stone 
or iron do not, as a rule, establish a chronological 

order. 

The division into stone, bronze, and iron ages, says 
Lindenschmidt, is of no more use to us than the divis- 
ion of the products of nature into minerals,, vegetables, 
and animals. Pullman, again, says: " Such a division 
only benefits the careless directors of antiquarian muse- 
ums ; it enables them to divide the antiquities according 
to the materials of which they are made (stone, bronze, 

^habas, "Etudes," p. 396; cf. C. Geikie. "Hours with the 
Bible," vol L, pp. 135-138. 

2 Quatrefages, " Les Polynesiens et leur Emigrations," Paris, 
1 866. 3 Ibid. 



PALEOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC AGES. 327 

and iron) , just as the careless librarian classes his books 
according to their size ; but for chronology nothing is 
gained by this classification." 

201. Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages. — Of the 
three periods of culture, the stone, the bronze, and the 
iron ages, only the first can be subdivided in a some- 
what general way into a paleolithic and a neolithic period, 
i.e., an ancient and a recent stone age. In the first, it is 
supposed, roughly- worked stone implements were used; 
in the second, polished stone implements. However, of 
them also holds good what we have remarked above; 
they do not appear everywhere, much less contempo- 
raneously in all places. Here the paleolithic, there the 
neolithic stage is wanting. When both are found, they 
sometimes follow each other immediately ; at others, are 
separated by longer or shorter intervals of time. Here, 
also, the truth probably lies in the middle. Their rela- 
tions in various places have been different, and can be 
established only by local investigations. 

To review our study, we trust we have sufficiently 
proved the worthlessness of the arguments taken from 
the modifications which have taken place since man's 
appearance in the superficial layers of the globe, in its 
physical geography, its climate, its fauna, and in the 
implements of man. When we compare the modifica- 
tions which have taken place in the course of the historic 
period with those which must have taken place pre- 
viously, we are astonished that the latter are not more 
considerable. Far, therefore, from establishing the great 
antiquity of our species, the arguments we have investi- 
gated tend to prove the contrary; they confirm the 
recent date of man's origin and appearance upon 
earth. 1 

1 Hamard, " Dictionnaire Apologetique," article " Antiquite ' de 

1'Homme." 



328 the antiquity of man and geology. 

202. It is Needless to Have Recourse to Extra- 
Scientific Hypotheses. — Therefore it is not necessary, 
in order to reconcile the accounts of science with the 
chronology of the Bible, to have recourse to extra-scien- 
tific hypotheses. Believing, on the one hand, in the 
great antiquity of many objects made by man, and es- 
pecially of the flints found in tertiary strata, which 
some savants, like the Abbe Bourgeois, maintain to be 
cut after some design, and refusing, on the other, to 
admit the existence of man at so remote a period, some 
apologists came to the belief that a being similar to us, 
although different from our nature in essential qualities, 
may have lived long before Adam. This unknown being 
was not a man, but, like man, cut flints in the form of 
knives and arrows. P. de Valroger was the first who set 
up these ideas, and P. Monsabre preached them from the 
pulpit of Notre Dame, in Paris. 

203. We Have to Admit that Man is More 
Ancient than was Formerly Believed. — Whatever 
there may be in this theory, we could not pass it over 
in silence ; but as it does not rest upon facts and is gen- 
erally rejected, and as there is no necessity whatever to 
admit it in the present state of science in order to recon- 
cile paleontology with the Bible, it is sufficient for us to 
have mentioned it. As long as geologists do not dis- 
cover a chronometer worthy of confidence to determine 
the antiquity of our race, they have no right to oppose 
their unproven affirmations to the teaching of Scripture, 
and we should not attach more value to their figures than 
they really deserve. However, while rejecting the ex- 
aggerations of several geologists, we admit the follow- 
ing point as established : Man is more ancient than was 
believed before the progress of geological studies. 
Paleontology proves it, and its teachings are confirmed 
by other sciences. Mankind has existed for many ages ; 



MAN IS MORE ANCIENT. 329 

we find the principal races, such as they are to-day, 
represented upon the most ancient monuments of Egypt. 
Mankind, therefore, was even then very ancient ; because, 
though sprung from a single pair, it had had time to 
modify itself so markedly. Philology obliges us to draw 
a similar conclusion ; for at a very remote epoch we meet 
a number of languages completely different from one 
another, which could not descend from one primitive 
language except after centuries. Hence, everything goes 
to prove that we must put back the appearance of man 
upon earth further than was formerly done. 1 

However, we cannot determine the time needed for 
these changes and revolutions in the language and physi- 
cal conformation of man, our chronometers being en- 
tirely defective. Thus we can arrive only at vague 
results, which do not permit us to draw categorical con- 
clusions regarding the chronology of the Bible and of 
primitive times. The historical monuments which have 
come down to us, and of which a great number have 
been discovered in this century, will put us in the condi- 
tion to be a little more precise. We shall examine and 
discuss these monuments in our next chapter. 

1 Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., pp. 257, 258. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES OF 
INDIA, CHINA, EGYPT, AND CHALDEA. 

Chronology of India. — Its great chronological pretensions are not 
justified. — Chronology of China. — Facts against the credi- 
bility of the Chinese chronology. — Chronology of Egypt. — 
Increasing difficulties in face of new information from the 
monuments. — Chief authorities. — Contradictory accounts. — 
The monumental lists. — Chaldea and Assyria offer more 
precise chronological figures. — Canons or eponymous lists. 
— The account from the cylinder of Nabonidos.— If it is cor- 
rect, even the chronology of the Septuagint is too short. — 
Conclusion. 

204. The Chronology of the Septuagint Pre- 
ferred. — As early as the seventeenth century the Jes- 
uit missionaries in China declared themselves in favor 
of the chronology of the Septuagint, by means of which 
they could reconcile the annals of China, which they 
were evangelizing, with Holy Scripture. From the 
beginning of their mission they had paid attention to 
it, because "some missionaries believed that Chinese 
chronology was contrary to Holy Scripture ; and although 
they tried to make the Chinese understand that their chro- 
nology agreed with the chronology of the Septuagint, 
authorized by the Church, these missionaries had always 
some scruple of conscience." 1 To solve the question, 
Father Adam Schall drew up a memoir, in which he gave 
an account of the foundations of Chinese chronology, 
and sent it to Rome, where it was examined. We are 

1 A. Gaubil, " Traite de la Chronologie Chinoise," pp. 283, 284. 

330 



THE CHRONOLOGY OF INDIA. 33 1 

not informed whether it was examined at St. Peter's, 
but a letter written from Rome the 20th of December, 
1637, in answer to the inquiry, declared, "that the Chi- 
nese chronology may be followed without scruple, even 
though it places the reign of the Emperor Yao in the 
year 2357 b. c, because it does not contradict the Sep- 
tuagint, whose chronology is supported by the Fathers 
and the Church." * 

When Sanscrit studies began to be cultivated in 
Europe at the beginning of the present century, the 
scholars who devoted themselves to the literature and 
history of India claimed a high antiquity for India. 
But subsequently Egyptologists and Assyriologists, the 
savants who decipher hieroglyphics 2 and the cuneiform 3 
characters of the Assyrians, claimed even greater antiq- 
uity for Egypt and Assyria. We shall therefore examine 
successively the chronology of India, China, Egypt, 
and Chaldea. 

205. (1) The Chronology of India. — Those who 
claim a great antiquity for India are mistaken. The 
best Sanscrit scholars of to-day acknowledge this ; they 
say that their predecessors exaggerated the antiquity of 
the history and literature of India. Those best versed 
in Hindoo literature agree that the Hindoos were 
destitute of the historical instinct. "The Hindoos," 

1 Ibid., p. 285. 

2 The figure of any object, as an animal, tree, weapon, staff, etc., 
standing for a word or syllable, or a single sound; a figure repre- 
senting an idea, and intended to convey a meaning, thus forming- 
part of a system of writing. The name, which has its origin 
in the idea that the sculptured symbols were exclusively sacer- 
dotal, is now given to any writing of similar character, as that 
of the ancient Mexicans, Peruvians, etc. 

3 Having the shape or form of a wedge ; also called " arrow- 
headed characters." This term is applied to the inscriptions of 
the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians. 



332 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

says Kreuse, x " do not possess any historical works. They 
have wrapped ancient events in a poetical cloak of 
myths, without any attempt at chronology." Hence we 
cannot draw anything precise or certain from their 
mythology. " The astronomical tablets, " says Klaproth, 2 
" to which they ascribed a mythical age, were made up 
in the seventh century by the ordinary computation of 
time, but later on were dated back to an earlier period 
and designated as the work of the gods." The Hin- 
doos, says B. St. Hilaire, 3 have neither chronology 
nor history; their astronomy is a plagiarism from the 
Chinese and Greeks ; they began to make use of writing 
only towards the middle of the Sutra period (440 B.C.) ; 4 
they recited their hymns by memory. Their Vedas in 
the present form were probably not composed before the 
seventh century before Christ; at all events, not much 
earlier. 

206. Value of Hindoo Chronology. — It is gener- 
ally supposed that the separation of the Aryans and the 
Indo-European migrations, starting from Bactria, took 
place towards the year 2500 B.C. 5 This is only a hypothe- 
sis, but quite probable. The antiquity which the Hin- 
doos claim for themselves is therefore fabulous. 

Talboys Wheeler commences their history only about 
1500 before the Christian era, and he has nothing to say 
about the date of the legends, which he extracts from the 
Mahabharatam. 6 The famous German Sanscritist, Las- 
sen, places the victory of the Pandavas over the Kouravas 
later than the year 1000 B. c. This victory ended the 

1 " Indiens Alte Geschichte," p. 2. 
Asia Polyglotta," p. 397. 
"Journal des Savants," vol. hi., p. 31. 
Max Miiller, " History of Sanscrit Literature," p. 517. 
F. Lenormant, " Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne," vol. iii., p. 431, 
T. Wheeler, " A Short History of India," p. 1. 



2 << 



WRITERS ON INDIA. 333 

war related in this great epic poem. He holds that the 
history anterior to this war is fictitious, and that it is 
impossible to reduce it to a true chronology. 1 Duncker 
assures us that we give it some credence only to the year 
800 B.C. 2 Biot has proved 3 that the numbers from which 
the Hindoos calculated their world periods were purely 
imaginary; they are based upon certain astronomical 
conjectures, and were borrowed, with the astronomy 
itself, from the Chinese. Cardinal Wiseman says: 
' A million of years are as soon invented as a thou- 
sand, . . . and your readers will believe it all, if you 
can only get them over the first step — that of believing 
the kings to have been the descendants of the sun and 
moon, or some such unearthly progenitors. We cannot 
indeed help pitying those who have been deceived into 
the belief of such absurdities." 4 

207. Epigraphical Monuments of India. — The most 
ancient dated monument on which Ave find the Hindoos 
mentioned is the trilingual inscription of Darius, King 
of Persia, at Persepolis. The son of Hystaspes mentions 
the land of the Hindusch, India, as one of the countries 
under his dominion. 5 

208. The First Foreign Writer on the History 

of India. — The first foreign writer who speaks of this 

country, after seeing it, is the Greek Megasthenes; he 

was sent, about the year 300 B.C., as ambassador by King 

Seleucus Nicator to the king of Magadha, Chandragupta, 

whom he calls Sandracottos, and on his return he 

wrote his Indica, of which only some fragments have 

1 " Indische Alterthumskunde," 2d ed., p. 61 1. 

2 Duncker, " Geschichte des Altertrmms," 5th ed., vol. iii., p. 11. 

3 " Journal des Savants," i860, p. 605. 

4 " Lecture on the Connection between Science and Revealed 
Religion," vol. ii., pp. 31, 32. 

5 Fr. Spiegel, "Die Altpersischen Keilschriften," 2d ed., 1881, 
p. 54. 



334 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

come down to us. 1 What he narrates of the state of the 
country, while exaggerated, is generally correct ; the 6402 
years which he, repeating native stories, attributes to the 
kings who reigned from Dionysos or Bacchus to Sandra- 
cottos are fabulous. 2 In the country itself no historical 
monument dated anterior to the third century before 
Christ has been found. The inscriptions of Acoka (250 
B.C.) are the first to make us acquainted with historical 
facts of certain date ; 3 they are the most ancient Indian 
inscriptions from which we can learn the dates. 4 

209. Hindoo Literature. — Indian literature does 
not permit us to go back any further than Indian 
history, and it is not nearly as ancient as was be- 
lieved formerly. 5 Max M tiller distinguishes four epochs 
in the composition of the Vedas. The first, that of 
the Chandas, to which the most ancient hymns be- 
long, he places between 1200 and 1000 B. c. He does not 
find any trace of authentic history in the indigenous 
literature of India before this time. 6 According to this 
savant, the Hindoos did not themselves conceive the idea 
of chronology; this notion came to them from the out- 
side, like their alphabet and their coinage ; it was their 
relations with the Greeks that led them to date their 
historical documents. 7 Therefore, Sanscrit literature 

3 C. Miiller, " Fragmenta Hist. Graec," vol. ii., p. 397 sq. 
2 M. Duncker, op. cit., vol. iii., p. 56 sq. 

3 Cf. R. Swell, "A Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India," 
Madras, 1883, p. 1. 4 See the summary in M. Duncker, op. cit. 

5 Cf. Max Miiller, " A History of Ancient Sanscrit Literature so 
far as it illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans," Lon- 
don, 1859; Summary by St. Hilaire, "Journal des Savants," 1860- 
1861. 

6 Klaproth puts the beginning of true chronological history in 
the countries of the Ganges only in the twelfth century before 
Christ. Cf. " Asia Polyglotta," p. 412. 

7 " Ancient Sanscrit Literature," pp. 301-305 ; see also Max Miil- 
ler 's " India, What it Teaches," p. 292. 



THE CREDIBILITY OF CHINESE CHRONOLOGY. 335 

cannot furnish 11s any important data on the antiquity 
of man. 1 

210. (2) The Chronology of China. — Quite differ- 
ent from the chronology of India is that of China, which 
presents to us a long series of regular annals. The 
Jesuit missionaries, who were the first to study this 
chronology, were very much surprised by the connection 
which they remarked therein ; the most accepted it with- 
out hesitating, and they carried with them several Euro- 
pean Sinologues in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
turies. Fathers Cibot and Premare, however, had doubts 
on the authenticity of the dates contained in Chinese 
histories, and these doubts were shared by Des Guignes, 
Klaproth, Renaudet, and some others. This division 
of opinion continues even to-day. 

P. Gaubil, S.J., known by his learned works on the 
chronology of the Celestial Empire, and as the translator 
of the Shu-king, places the reign of Hoangti (and he 
does not belong to the first dynasty) anterior to 2400 
B.C., and in another place he is not disinclined to put 
the first year of his reign in 2677 b. C. The Jesuit De Mail- 
lac believed that Fohi's reign falls about the year 2941 
B.C., although, according to the figures in the Vulgate, 
the Flood took place towards 2600 B.C., or even later. 

211. Facts Against the Credibility of Chinese 
Chronology. — However, Chinese dates and calculations 
are very suspicious, and every means of checking them 
is wanting. The early inhabitants of the Celestial Em- 
pire had no era, properly speaking, like that of Nabonasar 
or of the Seleucides; the era of Hangti, commencing in 
the year 2367, was officially adopted by the Chinese gov- 
ernment at a time when it was impossible to verify it ; 
it is not universally accepted even by the Chinese them- 
selves. " Who knows what passed in remote antiquity?" 

1 St. Hilaire, " Du Budhisme, " in the " Journal des Savants, " 1 86 1 . 



336 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

asks the Chinese Yangts, "because no authentic docu- 
ment has come down to us. Whoever will examine 
the old histories will come to the conclusion that it is 
very difficult to believe them, and a serious discussion 
of them will convince him that they are unworthy of 
belief. They did not preserve any historical document 
in primitive times." ' Certainly no European or Ameri- 
can author can be more exacting than the Chinese them- 
selves. 

212. The Most Ancient Classic Book of China. 

The Shu-king, the most ancient of Chinese classics, con- 
tains various historical documents, which, according to 
M. Legge, its last translator, extend from 2357 to 627 
B.C. 2 approximately. " But," observes the learned Sino- 
logue, " however favorable to the antiquity of China, the 
Shu itself does not furnish us the means to establish a 
system of chronology for the long period of time it 
embraces. 3 It teaches that the dynasty of Kau suc- 
ceeded that of Chang (or Yiu) , and the Chang dynasty 
that of Hia, and that before Yu, founder of the Hia, 
Chun and Yao had been reigning. . . . Before the 
dynasty of Han, a list of kings and the duration of their 
reigns were the only means the Chinese had to determine 
the duration of their national history. This means would 
be sufficient had we a complete catalogue, worthy of 
belief, of the kings and the years of their reigns, but we 
do not possess this." 4 

Charles Gutzlaff, for many years a Protestant mis- 
sionary in China, in his history of this country says : 

'In W. Williams' "The Middle Kingdom," London, 2d ed., 
1883, vol. ii., p. 137. 

a " The Sacred Books of China," Oxford, vol. iii., p. 1. 

3 He admits that Yao reigned during the twenty-fourth century 
before Christ. 

4 " The Sacred Books of China, "pp. 20, 21. For proof, see Ibid., 
pp. 21-27. 



CHINESE ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS. 337 

" All those who have written about China are agreed 
that the Chinese are a very ancient nation. But that 
the nation existed before the Deluge, or even before the 
era we assign to the creation of the world, is just as 
extravagant and ill-founded as the mythological fables 
of the Romans and Greeks. It is our belief that the 
Chinese astronomical notions were like those of the 
Chaldeans and Egyptians, and we give great credit to 
their calculations of eclipses ; but we doubt very much 
the correctness of their chronology, which the supporters 
of the antediluvian existence of the empire wish us to 
believe. Not only the fabulous part of Chinese history 
is very uncertain, but even as regards the two first 
dynasties, those of Hia and of Chang, there are grievous 
difficulties which have never been entirely cleared up. 
In fact, the authentic history of China should be dated 
from Confucius, 550 B.C., and the duration of the period 
previous to this ought to be looked upon as altogether 
uncertain." * 

213. Chinese Astronomical Calculations are not 
to be Trusted. — The astronomical calculations by 
which it was attempted to fix the antiquity of China are 
unreliable, except the calculations of the eclipses. M. G. 
Schlegel, in his "Chinese Uranography, or direct proofs, 
that primitive astronomy originated in China, and that 
it has been borrowed by the ancient peoples of the West 
from the Chinese," ascribed the invention of the signs 
for the two equinoxes and the solstices to the year 
16,916 before our era; but his conclusions have no bet- 
ter foundation than those of Dupuis, who attributed an 
almost equal antiquity to the zodiac of Denderah, which, 
in fact, dates only from the Roman epoch. 

Thus the Chinese annals, considered in themselves, 

'Ch. Gutzlaff, 'Sketch of Chinese History," London, 1834, 
p. 72. 

22 



338 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

allow of much criticism. In their most ancient parts 
they have no chronology; they attribute to their first 
kings reigns of unlimited time, they are often self- 
contradictory, and even the Chinese themselves do not 
agree in regard to their primitive history. 

214. Another Reason Against the Credibility 
of the Chinese Annals. — Another circumstance which 
stands against the credibility of the Chinese annals is the 
destruction of all the historical books of the empire, which 
took place in the year 213 B.C. by the order of Chi- 
koang-ti, founder of the dynasty of Tsin. 1 This prince 
commanded them all to be thrown into the fire, threat- 
ening the disobedient with death. We are told that this 
command was obeyed by all, except one man, and, thanks 
to a copy of the Shu-king he had hidden inside of a wall, 
Chinese scholars were enabled to restore the history of 
the empire ; others say that the Shu-king was dictated 
by an old man who knew it by memory. The savants 
of China never have doubted the destruction of the 
monuments of their ancient literature, 2 and if they 
are right, all they relate about the times anterior to the 
dynasty of Tsin deserves little confidence. However, 
European critics, without contesting the partial fulfil- 
ment of the imperial will, believe that a certain number 
of copies of the Shu-king, and other historical books, 
must have escaped the flames in a vast empire like 

China. 

But some of those who think it probable that the de- 
struction of Chinese historical literature was not complete 
have another grievance against Chinese chronology; 

1 Gaubil, " Traite de la Chronologie Chiiioise," p. 64. 

2 "As the ancient books describing the ancient times were 
burned by Tsin, why, asks Yangts, should we represent these 
remote ages inaccurately and show ourselves satisfied with 
fables ?" In W. Williams' " The Middle Kingdom," vol. ii., p. 137. 



OLD CHINESE MONUMENTS. 339 

ancient monuments are wanting to confirm and check it. 
One of the most recent historians of China, S. Fries, 
divided his work into two parts : the mythological and the 
historic period — the latter commencing in the year 775 
B.C. Not, says he, because all the events related after 
this date are historical and all those previous to it fabu- 
lous, "but because this is the first fixed point for a com- 
parative chronological study, whilst all prior dates must 
be considered as estimates." 1 Klaproth, also, denies 
that Chinese history is deserving of unquestioned belief 
before the building of Rome, i. e., before the time when 
Hebrew literature began to decline. 2 

215. Old Chinese Monuments. — True, the Chinese 
appeal to some ancient monuments in support of their 
historians, but these monuments bear no critical exam- 
ination. The authenticity of the tablet of Yu, which, 
as they say, was discovered in 12 12 B.C., of the "stone 
drummer," ascribed to the dynasty of Chu (827-882 
B.C.), and of the seventy-two tablets engraved, they 
say, by order of the seventy-two predecessors of Fo- 
hi, is justly looked upon with suspicion. Thus we do 
not find in the Celestial Empire any really authentic 
document upon which we can build an ancient date. 3 

What we do not meet in China itself we do not find 
outside of it ; we have no foreign testimony in favor of the 
high antiquity of the Chinese. The Chinese inscription 
supposed to have been found on a vase of baked clay, 
discovered by Schliemann in his excavations at Hissar- 
lick, 4 is, according to Mr. Sayce, 5 a Cypriot inscription. 
The commercial relations which, as we are assured, 

*S. Fries, " Abriss der Geschichte China's," 1884, pp. ix, x. 

2 " Asia Polyglotta," p. 406. 

3 Th. Fergusson, " Chinese Researches," Shanghai, 18 80, pp. 7-12. 

4 H. Schliemann, " Troy and its Remains," p. 23. 

5 See his letter in the " London Times," June 11, 1879. 



34-0 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

existed since 3000 years between the Celestial Empire 
and Egypt, and which were carried on by means of 
caravans travelling irregularly from the one country to 
the other by way of India, are not remote enough to 
justify the pretentions of the Chinese. Small china 
vases of Chinese origin are said to have been found in the 
ancient tombs of Egypt. 1 But if Chinese objects — which 
do not bear any date — have reached the valley of the 
Nile, it is certain that the workmen who produced them 
were unknown there. Chabas has shown that the mon- 
uments of ancient Egypt do not contain any mention of 
the Celestial Empire, although the names of many other 
ancient nations known at that time are found there. 2 
The Chinese themselves acknowledge, as Tcheng-ki-tong 
has done, 3 that their relations with outside nations are 
comparatively modern. 

From what we have said it follows that the primeval 
history of the Middle Kingdom is a sealed book, 4 and 
that Chinese chronology does not prove that the Celes- 
tial Empire is as ancient as Noe; the chronology of the 
Septuagint is sufficient for the development of its his- 
tory. 5 

216. (3) The Chronology of Egypt. — The difficul- 
ties of Egyptian chronology have increased with the new 
information furnished by the monuments. The state- 
ments of ancient writers were easily reconciled with half 
knowledge, but better information shows discrepancies 
which are in many instances beyond the hope of solution. 
It may be said that we know something of the outlines of 
Egyptian chronology ; but Egyptian history is in a great 



1 W. G. Hunter, " Bits of Old China," London, 1885, p. 131. 
2 " Etudes sur l'Antiquite," Paris, 1873, cn - iv., P- 94- 
3 " Les Chinois peints par eux-memes," Paris, 1884, p. 272. 
4 F. H. Balfour, " Waifs and Strays from the Far East," p. 11. 
5 Gaubil, " Traite de la Chronologie Chinoise," p. 277. 



GREEK WRITERS ON EGYPT. 34 1 

measure a mass of conjecture, at least before the time 
when the Egyptian lists can be checked by what we know 
of Hebrew and Assyrian history. 

217. The Chief Authorities for the Egyptian 
Chronology. — Our information on the chronology of 
ancient Egypt comes from three sources: (1) from the 
accounts of Greek travellers who visited Egypt; (2) 
from a history written in Greek, a little after the conquest 
of Alexander the Great, by an Egyptian writer of great 
reputation, named Manetho, a priest of Sebennytos, in 
the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (about 317 B.C.); to 
[Manetho we owe a list of thirty dynasties, and the length 
of time each ruled, to which, at least in some cases, the 
duration of the individual reigns is added; (3) from 
the monuments, inscriptions, papyri, discovered in the 
valley of the Nile since the beginning of the present 
century. 

218. The Greek Writers Attribute to Egypt a 
High Antiquity. — The priests of Heliopolis related to 
Solon that their monarchy had lasted 8000 years. 1 One 
century later the priests of the same temple told Herod- 
otus 2 that the annals of their kings dated back 11,340 
years; that is, 3340 years more. According to Varro 
(1 16-26 B.C.), on the contrary, the Egyptian monarchy, in 
his time, had lasted a little short of 2000 years. 3 Dio- 
dorus of Sicily, who visited Egypt in the reign of Au- 
gustus, places the reign of Menes, the first human king 
of Egypt, a little less than 5000 years before his time. 4 

These contradictory accounts are far from satisfactory. 

1 Plato, " Timaeus," ed. Didot, ii., p. 201. 

2 Herodotus, ii., p. 142, ed. Didot, pp. 118, 119. 

3 De Buttafoco, " Etudes Historiques," p. 9. We do not know on 
what the calculations of Varro are based, because his work is 
lost. 

4 Diodorus, i., p. 14, ed. Didot. 



34 2 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

The figures given by the Greek travellers deserve only 
moderate confidence. They could communicate with the 
Egyptians through interpreters only, and therefore may 
have misunderstood their information, and we have no 
more satisfactory guarantee of the truthfulness of those 
who furnished it. On the other hand, it is evident that 
their testimony ought to be confirmed by indigenous 
documents. 

219. The History of Manetho. — Of the latter we 
possess only one which is prior to recent discoveries, 
namely the history of Manetho, mentioned above. This 
author's history itself is lost, but its chronological part 
has been preserved to us. Manetho attributed to Egypt 
an antiquity of 30,000 years before Alexander the Great. 
Here is the summary of his chronology, as it has been 
transmitted to us by Eusebius : 1 

1 . Reign of gods 13,900 years 

2. Reign of heroes 1,255 

3. Reigns of other kings 1,817 " 

4. Reigns of thirty Memphites.. 1,790 " 

5. Reigns of ten Thinites 350 

6. Reigns of Manes and heroes. . 5,813 " 

7. Reigns of thirty dynasties .. . 5,000 

Total 29,925 years 

The reigns of the gods and demi-gods, with which 
Manetho 's list of kings begins, throw discredit upon it, 
as is but natural; however, after rejecting the first six 
categories of kings, most critics justly consider the 
thirty dynasties beginning with Menes and ending with 
Nectanebo II. as historical. 

220. The Value of Manetho' s Statements. — 

Manetho, writing in the third century before our era, 

1 " Chronicus Canon.," i. 1, c. xx., Migne, " Patrologia Graeca, ' 
vol. xix., col. 182 and sq. 



ORIGINAL MONUMENTS OF EGYPT. 343 

proposed to give not only the Egyptian dynasties, but 
also most of the names of the kings in the order of their 
succession, with the exact duration of their reigns. 
These lists, supposing that the kings they enumerate were 
not contemporary, cover a period of about 5000 years. 
However, it appears that Manetho's method is often 
not strictly chronological. As far as we can see, he 
makes up the sum of each dynasty, except the twelfth, by 
adding the individual reigns, where these are stated, 
taking no account of the fact that some of them over- 
lap; in other words, Manetho enumerates as succes- 
sive reigns which it is certain were wholly or partly con- 
temporaneous. Moreover, he never makes two kings 
reign conjointly. But from the monuments we know 
that several kings reigned together for a time. The best 
known example is that of Ramses II. of the nineteenth 
dynasty; he was associated in the kingdom with his 
father Seti at the age of eleven years, and reigned con- 
jointly with him for about twenty years. Afterwards he 
continued to reign alone for . about thirty-six years. 
Manetho assigns to these two kings 121 years, the monu- 
ments 77. 

Finally, Manetho frequently increases the length of 
reigns. Of thirty-seven cases, in which we can check 
his figures by those of the papyrus of Turin, his num- 
bers are greater 22 times and less only 6 times. The 
total of these thirty- seven reigns according to him 
is 984 years, and according to the papyrus, 615, making 
an excess of one-third. 1 

Hence it follows that the authority of Manetho, al- 
though it should not be disregarded altogether, must be 
checked by the monuments. 

221. Original Monuments of Egypt. — The authen- 
tic original monuments for Egyptian chronology are, in 

1 G. Rawlinson, " The Antiquity of Man," London, 1883, p. 20. 



344 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

the first place, the four royal lists, (i) The papyrus 
of Turin is the most important ; it includes the kings 
from the gods to the shepherd kings. Unfortunately 
the papyrus, entire when discovered, was broken 
into 164 pieces while being transported to Turin, and 
hence is no longer complete. (2) The tablet of Abydos, 
discovered in the temple of Osiris, at Abydos, in 1864, by 
Dumichen, represents King Seti I. and his son, Ramses 
II., offering homage to 76 kings, their predecessors. 
The 76 cartouches of these kings are placed in chrono- 
logical order. Scholars have remarked intentional omis- 
sions therein. 1 (3) The tablet of Saqqarah, found by 
Mariette in the tomb of Tunrei, an officer of Ramses II., 
at Saqqarah, and at present preserved in the Museum 
of Boulak, contains 45 royal cartouches, arranged in the 
same manner as those on the monument of Abydos. In 
the middle there is a vacant space sufficient for at least 
five kings. The tablet begins with the sixth dynasty. 
(4) A similar tablet, found at Karnak, preserved in the 
"Cabinet of Medals," at Paris, shows us Thotmes III. 
rendering homage to his predecessors, 6 1 in number ; how- 
ever, the royal cartouches in this case are not arranged 
chronologically. Nevertheless, it has the advantage of 
giving more fully than the other lists the names of sev- 
eral kings from the thirteenth to the seventeenth dynasty, 
and a great number of names of the eleventh dynasty. 

Besides these four great royal lists, we possess a num- 
ber of shorter ones, dating mostly after the eighteenth and 
nineteenth dynasties. The hieroglyphic inscriptions on 
the walls of the temples relating the exploits of Egyptian 
monarchs, the stelae of the court officers and different 
other personages, the Apis stelae and all kinds of figured 
monuments, allow us to complete and check, in part, at 
least, the facts furnished by the royal lists. 

1(1 Zeitschrift fiir Egyptische Sprache," 1864, p. 84. 



NO COMPLETE EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 345 

222. What these Monuments Teach Us.— These 
monuments supply us with an almost complete series of 
the kings who reigned from the beginning of the eigh- 
teenth dynasty, with which commences what Manetho 
calls the New Empire. The number of kings of this 
period furnished by the monuments is 63, which is about 
the same as that given by Manetho. The reigns of 
several of them were short ; some princes reigned con- 
jointly. 

For the time preceding the New Empire the monu- 
ments present considerable omissions. We have no con- 
temporary documents of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 
14th, 1 5th, and 16th dynasties of Manetho. The most an- 
cient Egyptian monument is that of Snefru, first king of 
the fourth Manethonian dynasty. Next in age are the 
pyramids, and the tombs of this epoch are very numer- 
ous, as also those of the fifth and sixth dynasties. After- 
wards they are wanting altogether, until the eleventh 
dynasty. This dynasty furnishes a small number; the 
twelfth a great number. The Turin papyrus is the prin- 
cipal source for the history of the thirteenth dynasty; 
then follows complete darkness until the end of the seven- 
teenth dynasty. We have, therefore, contemporary 
accounts of the 4 th, 5th, 6th, nth, 12th, 13th, and 17th 
dynasties. According to Josephus, 1 Manetho attributed 
to them a duration of 5 1 1 years; according to Julius 
Africanus, 2 955 years. The monuments seem to dis- 
prove so long a duration. The Ancient Empire embraces 
the first six dynasties. According to Manetho, the first 
lasted 26S years; according to the Turin papyrus, 102 
years. 

223. No Complete Egyptian Chronology.— Thus, 
in spite of all these sources of information, we have no 
1 " Contra Apionem," i., p. 14. 
2 Apud Syncellum, " Chronographia," i., pp. 113, 114. 



346 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

fixed Egyptian chronology. The difficulty the monu- 
ments present is that they are incomplete and we have 
no complete series of them. The Egyptians had no 
era, consequently had no system of chronology. 1 

The accounts they have left us teach us how many 
years each king reigned, but without informing us of 
his relation to the reign of his predecessor and successor. 
They recorded carefully the length of each sovereign's 
reign and the life of each Apis; but here they stopped. 
They failed to indicate the lapse of time between one Apis 
and another ; they did not distinguish the years during 
which a prince reigned alone from those when he was 
merely an associate on the throne. Thus, if a king 
reigned ten years with his father, thirty-two years alone, 
and three with his son, the monuments ascribe the ten 
and the three years respectively to his father and to his 
son, but at the same time assign forty-five years to 
the king himself. This is no imaginary example; it 
applies, so Brugsch 2 tells us, to Osortesen L, to whom 
the Turin papyrus attributes a reign of 45 years. Nay, 
more, contemporary dynasties, if legitimate, are enu- 
merated as if they had been consecutive ; whilst, on the 
contrary, usurping dynasties are neglected entirely. 

Generally speaking, the monumental lists of Egypt 
are not chronological at all ; the papyrus of Turin is the 
exception. It gives the years of each reign, but, as we 
have seen, the state of the document permits us to make 
only a limited use of it. 3 In the first part of the papyri 
the chronology is defective. It is only after the begin- 
ning of the twenty-sixth dynasty that we possess the 
means to establish a correct chronology. 

^enormant, " Histoire ancienne de l'Orient," vol. i., p. 322. 

2 " Geschichte yEgyptens," p. 40. 

3 G. Rawlinson, "History of Ancient Egypt," 1881, vol. ii., 

p. 2. 



THE DATE OF MENES NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. 347 



224. Differences among Modern Historians. 

What we have said explains the great disagreement 
which exists among the modern historians who have 
dealt with this question. Between the highest and 
the lowest of their calculations there is a difference of 
no less than 3936 years. ' " It is, " observes G. Rawlinson, 
' as if the best authorities on Roman history would tell us, 
the one that the republic was founded in 508, the others 
in 3508 B.C." These differences are caused in part by 
the uncertainty of the length of the reigns of the several 
kings, but chiefly by the varying number of contempo- 
raneous dynasties assumed by the authors of these cal- 
culations. It is admitted that several dynasties ruled at 
the same time, but how many we do not know. 2 All the 
chronologies are, therefore, hypothetical, and the one 
has no surer foundation than the other. All Egyptolo- 
gists who have studied the question acknowledge this. 

225. The Date of Menes Not Clearly Estab- 
lished. — Nothing is less certain, says Vigouroux, than 
the date of Menes' reign. The shortest chronologies 
are doubtful and suspicious; the longest are certainly 
false. Egypt is somewhat in the same position as China ; 
their historical documents and dates do not permit us 
to construct a satisfactory chronology, and therefore do 

1 The beginning of the reign of King Menes is put by 



Henne in the year. . .6117 b. c. 



Lesueur 

Bockl 

Unger 

Brugsch 

Lauth 

Pessel 

Lieblein 

Ebers 



■5773 
.5702 

•5613 
4455 
4157 
3917 

3893 
3892 



Lepsius in the year. . .3852 b. c. 



Bunsen 



3623 



Rockerath " 2782 



Seyffarth 
Poole 



2762 
2717 



Wilkinson " 2691 



Prichard 
Hofmann 



2400 
2181 



2 Lenormant supposes only two contemporaneous dynasties, 
Brugsch, five; Lieblein, seven; Wilkinson and Poole, twelve. 
Cf. Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," vol. iii., p. 289. 



348 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

not prove that the chronology drawn from the Septu- 
aodnt is too short. The savants who demand more 
time base their demand on mere conjectures and hy- 
potheses and nothing obliges us to accept these. 

When P. Pierret places the reign of Menes 5000 years 
before our era, and asserts that 4000 years must have 
passed ' when Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt 
under one sceptre, he states what is simply an opinion, 
and one far from being established. We must admit, 
however, that Egypt existed as a state before this king. 
All unbiassed Egyptologists admit this. It is supported 
by a number of well-authenticated facts ; for, no matter 
how far we trace back the history of Egypt, we find it in 
possession of advanced civilization, of the art of monu- 
mental writing, and of religion. We know nothing of its 
rise and of its infancy. When Egypt becomes known 
to us its civilization is at full maturity. The Exodus of 
the Hebrews took place under the nineteenth dynasty; 
Abraham's visit to the valley of the Nile probably took 
place during the twelfth dynasty. Egypt was already 
very ancient at that time ; its pyramids had been built a 
long time before. But here, as in prehistoric paleontol- 
ogy and archaeology, we lack reliable chronometers ; we 
can attain no sure results, and must repeat that Genesis, 
if correctly explained, does not conflict with the results 
of Egyptological research. 2 

226. (4) The Chronology of Chaldea. — Chaldea 
and Assyria present to us more precise figures than 
Egypt. They are transmitted to us, not by ancient 
authors, but by the monuments discovered during the 
last twenty or thirty years. We have no native historical 

j " Cours d'Archeologie Egyptienne," Paris, 1883, p. 42. Owen 
assumes 7000 years for the Ancient Empire. Others claim 10,000, 
15,000, and 20,000 years. 

2 Cf. Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," vol. iii., pp. 290, 291. 



CUNEIFORM ACCOUNTS. 



349 



accounts except those contained in the Chaldean history 
of Berosus, priest of Bel, at Babylon, in the time of Anti- 
ochus II., King- of Syria (261-246 B.C.); but what the 
fragments of Berosus tell us of Babylonian chronology 
is mostly fabulous and was not believed even by the 
Greeks and Romans. Of the Chaldeans Cicero says: 
" We should find the Babylonians guilty of folly, of van- 
ity, or of ignorance, and pronounce them liars, when 
they assert that their monuments include the history of 
four hundred and sixty thousand years." ] 

227. The Monuments Offer More Precise Chron- 
ological Accounts. — Indeed, the cuneiform docu- 
ments, especially the Assyrian, present us with new 
accounts of Babylonian chronology. The Assyrians are 
the first people of antiquity who show chronological 
intelligence. The historical inscriptions which they 
have left us, and which contemporary explorers have 
unearthed from the ruins of their capitals, contain the 
most precise details and are carefully dated. This peo- 
ple did not, like the Egyptians and Chinese, count by 
the reigning years of their sovereigns, but by epony- 
mous officers called Limmi, who gave their name to the 
year, like the Archons at Athens and the Consuls at 
Rome. They set up canons or eponymous lists, and some 
of these documents have been found and published. Un- 
fortunately, thus far we possess only a small number of 
them ; however, we have the certainty that the institu- 
tion of the Limmi goes back at least to the fourteenth 
century before our era, for an inscription of Binnirari I. 
is dated in the eponymy of Salmankarradu. 

228. Cuneiform Accounts.— Thanks to this system 
of chronology, the Assyrians furnish us more precise 
dates than we have met with among other ancient na- 
tions. We shall call attention to three cuneiform 

1 " De Divinatione," i., 19, 36. 



350 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

accounts. Sanherib, Sargon's son and successor on the 
Assyrian throne (705-681 B.C.), and the enemy of Eze- 
chias, in one of his inscriptions reports a fact which 
took place 418 years before him, under Tiglath Pileser I. 
(about 1 130 B.C.) ; Tiglath Pileser in turn relates that he 
restored a temple at Khalah-Shergat, built by Samsi 
Bin, son of Ismi Dagon, 641 years before. Assurbanipal, 
nephew l of Sanherib, and king 668 B.C., reports an inva- 
sion of the plains of the Euphrates by Kudur Nakhunti, 
King of Elam, 1635 years before the conquest of Elam 
by himself; that is to say, in the year 2276 before our 
era. 2 Herewith agrees a fragment of Berosus, preserved 
by Polyhistor, according to which the Elamite dynasty 
reigned at Babylon about 2300 B.C. But Berosus knows 
of more than 30 earlier rulers whose ruined buildings 
were restored by the Elamite dynasty. 

229. The Cylinder of Nabonidos. — We are brought 
to a still more remote time, even to the extreme limit of 
the fourth thousandth before Christ, by an inscription on 
a cylinder of Nabonidos. This inscription was discovered 
at Abou-Alba by Hormuzd Rassam, and is at present 
preserved in the British Museum. Mr. Pinches, in the 
year 1882, laid before the Society of British Archaeology 
a translation of this cylinder ; this translation was ap- 
proved by Sir Henry Rawlinson. On this monument 
we read that Nabonidos (about 550 B.C.) disinterred the 
timin, corner-stone of the temple of the sun at Sippara, 
from a depth of 32 feet, and here he found the tablet of 
Naram Sin, son of Sargon I., which had not been seen 
by the eyes of men for 3200 years. It recites that Sar- 
gon I. had built said temple of the god Samas (the sun) 

1 Vigouroux calls him " son " of Sanherib. 

2 Menant, " Annales des Rois d'Assyrie,"p. 18 ; Idem, " Babylon 
et Chaldee," p. 55. Cf. Wetzer nnd Welte, " Kirchenlexicon," 
2ded., Art. " Chronologic " 



VALUE OF THE CYLINDER OF NABONIDOS. 35 1 

at Sippara 3200 years before the reign of Nabonidos; 
that is, about the year 3750 B.C. 1 This elder Sargon, 
who was formerly believed to have lived 2000 B.C., is 
brought in connection with the Deluge, and was after- 
ward deified. A summary of the events of his reign, 
found by Nabonidos on an astrological tablet, proves 
him to have been a historical person. Hence, according 
to the cylinder of Nabonidos, the Deluge took place 
about 4000 years B.C. 

230. Value of the Cylinder of Nabonidos. If 

we admit this date we must acknowledge that the post- 
diluvian chronology based on the Bible, even that of the 
Septuagint, is insufficient, because it gives us less than 
4000 years between the Deluge and the advent of Our 
Saviour. But although the date given by Nabonidos 
has been strongly maintained by some Assyriologists, 2 
we should accept it only on condition that it be con- 
firmed by future documents. Indeed, it is very hazard- 
ous to assume the correctness of calculations made for 
such long periods, whether by Nabonidos or by those 
who furnished him this date. Even the fact that it 
is given in round numbers is suspicious. "I confess 
to feeling considerable hesitation myself," says Mr. 
Sayce, " in accepting it (this date) on the strength of one 
single, unsupported statement of Nabonidos." 3 Mr. 
Peters remarks : " If such a number met us in the Bible 
we should certainly refuse to regard it as accurate ; why 
not here also?" 4 If we do not accept contradictory 
dates given by contemporary chronologists, we should 

1 " Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia," vol. i., pi. 64; 
J. Latrille, " Der Naboni duscy finder " in " Zeitschrift fur Keil- 
schriftforschung," 1885, vol. ii., pp. 350-357. 

2 See H. Rawlinson, "Athenaeum," Dec. 9, 1882, p. 781. 

3 Sayce, see "Academy," Nov. 24, 1883, p. 351. 

4 " Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," May, 
1886, p. 142. 



352 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

certainly hesitate to accept those which Babylonian 
chronologists give us for a period so remote from them. 
We find the Assyrians had a chronological canon, which 
is a guarantee of their calculations, but we must remark 
that thus far no trace of a similar canon has been found 
among the Babylonians. But how could Nabonidos 
compute so accurately the time which separated him 
from Naram Sin? Did the priests of Sippara not exag- 
gerate the antiquity of their temple, and is not the date 
of the inscription fabulous or exaggerated, as so many 

dates in Berosus? 

231. Exact Chronology of Chaldea.— For Chaldea 
and Babylonia an exact chronology begins only with 
the era of Nabonassar, in 747 B.C. The canon of Ptol- 
emy, the royal lists of Babylon, 1 the synchronisms of the 
Assyrian monuments, and finally the numerous tablets 
of the family of Egibi (from Nabuchodonosor until 
Darius, son of Hystaspes), furnish us sure and reliable 
dates for this epoch, but we have no means to check 
earlier dates, except the Assyrian documents, which, 
however, do not go back far enough. 

232. Conclusion: If the Cylinder of Nabonidos 
is Correct, the Chronology of the Septuagint is 
too short. — The cuneiform documents are, among all 
the ancient monuments, those which furnish us the most 
precise and complete dates. If the date to which Na- 
bonidos assigns Naram Sin is correct, the chronology 
drawn from the Septuagint is much too short, and we 
must admit that there are breaks and omissions in the 
Biblical chronology. But while waiting for new discov- 
eries to confirm or refute the King of Babylon, there is 

1 All the Babylonian royal lists may be found in Sayce, " Ancient 
Empires of the East," pp. 292-299. The Babylonian cuneiform 
inscriptions have been published in the " Proceedings of the Soci- 
ety of Biblical Archaeology," Dec, 1880, Jan., 1881, May, 1884. 



CYLINDER OF NABONIDOS AND THE SEPTUAGINT. 353 

no positive proof to show that the figures of the Greek 
version of the Old Testament are insufficient. 

The authentic history of India, and even that of China, 
can, without much difficulty, be reconciled with the 
chronology of the Greek and Latin fathers. 

The extreme antiquity of Menes, the first king of 
Egypt, is far from being proved, and there are many rea- 
sons to lower his date. The civilization which flourished 
in Egypt and Chaldea at the time of the most ancient 
kings known to us, it maybe said, requires a longer time 
to develop than that furnished by the chronology of the 
Septuagint; and recent paleontological discoveries also 
demand a greater lapse of time. Only very lately we 
hear that proofs are not wanting that before the erec- 
tion of the great pyramids other structures had stood 
on the site where they now stand. 1 The cultivation 
of flax in Egypt between 3000 and 4000 B.C. is proved 
beyond a doubt. We need not, therefore, be aston- 
ished to find that the lake-dwellers whose remains are 
found in Lakes Pfaffiker, Niederwyler, and Constance 
knew well how to cultivate and use this plant. They 
knew how to work flax thread, not only into rough 
twine, fish nets, and mats, but also into fine products 
like fringes, blankets, embroideries, and hair nets. 
Samples of textile and tress-work prove the skill of 
the colonists of Robbenhausen in the working of flax ; 
and to judge from the numerous remains of thin and 
thick cloth that nave been found, we draw no rash 
conclusion when we say that these people dressed not 
in furs, but in garments of flax, and this not only 
in the so-called bronze age, but even in that of stone. 
A further example of the artistic taste of these people 
is a nicely worked hair net and a piece of cloth "which 
is so worked by means of a needle that it forms various 

" Jahrbnch der Naturwissenschaften," 1889, 1890, p. 436. 
23 



354 ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES. 

designs." Their taste in dress is proved from an idol 
of clay. It wears a dress open under the neck, but 
neatly closed from the breast downward. Its edges, as 
also the seams of the sleeves, are adorned with square 
ornaments, with a cross in the middle. 1 

From all we have said it follows that the civilization 
of Asia must be very ancient. However, as it is impos- 
sible to fix dates, we need only repeat. Prove the antiq- 
uity of man, and the Bible will not contradict you. The 
genealogies in Genesis are probably incomplete, hence 
they cannot serve as a basis for chronology. It is not 
the end of Holy Scripture to inform us of the precise 
date of the creation of our first parents, nor of the day and 
year when heaven and earth were created. It leaves all 
these questions to the discussion of men, provided they 
keep within the limits of a wise criticism. Let us always 
bear in mind the words of Sacred Writ found in Ecclesi- 
asticus : " Who hath numbered the sand of the sea, and 
the drops of rain, and the days of the world?" 

111 Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1889, 1890, p. 437. 
2 Ecclus. i., 2 : cf. Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," etc., p. 298. 



CHAPTER XI. 

UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Importance of the subject.— La Peyrere, the inventor of polygen- 
ism.— His system.— Criticism.— The Preadamites.— Histori- 
cal side of the question.— The strongest polygenists are found 
in the United States.— The polygenists confound races with 
species.— Influence of climate and heredity.— The classifica- 
tion of the human species is not yet settled.— The influence 
of climate and heredity upon man's body is unquestionable.— 
Examples. 

The unity of the human species, or its descent 
from one pair, is, from the dogmatic point of view, one 
of the most important truths derived from the account 
of man's creation. Nevertheless this doctrine has found 
a great number of adversaries in our days. 

233. Importance of the Subject. — The theory 
which affirms the plurality of human species is called 
polygenism, in contradistinction to monogenism, the Cath- 
olic doctrine which teaches its unity. "It is a very 
curious illustration of the vagaries of the human mind," 
says Cardinal Gibbons, "that, while Darwin refers all 
living creatures, man included, to one, or at most, to a 
few original types, another school of philosophers has 
endeavored to trace the human family not to one single 
pair, but to different sources. Thus while error runs to 
both extremes, truth rests between them." ' 

In denying that all men descend from one original 
pair, polygenism evidently contradicts Christian teach- 
ing. Revelation teaches us that Adam is the common 
l " Our Christian Heritage," p. 284. 



355 



356 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

father of all men. The Church proclaims this doctrine 
expressly when she sends her missionaries to all parts 
of the world to baptize unbelievers without distinction 
of color or physical formation. If, as polygenists pre- 
tend, the negroes of Africa, the yellow race of Asia, 
the Redskins of America, do not descend from Adam, 
these races could not inherit original sin. Then, what 
o-ood would it be to administer to them the sacrament 

of baptism ? 

Hence the Church would err ; and with her all Chris- 
tians, including heretics and schismatics, if science 
proved that the whole human family is not descended 
from Adam, from one common father. By such a dis- 
covery the whole economy of Christianity would be 

modified. 

234. The Father of Polygenism. — The father of 
polygenism is La Peyrere (1 594-1676). This author 
maintained : 1 . That the first and second chapters of Gen- 
esis relate different facts, and that the man of Gen. i., 27 
is not the Adam of Gen. ii., 7. But it is especially from 
the history of Adam and his posterity that he seeks to 
draw his proofs of the existence of Preadamites. 2. 
Cain, he continues, after the murder of Abel, having 
been condemned to roam upon the earth, expressed the 
fear of being killed : hence other men existed who were 
not children of Adam, for the third son of Adam, Seth, 
was not yet born. 3. When Cain departed he took his 
wife along. Whence came this woman, if Adam and 
Eve were the only human beings then living? 4. Soon 
after the birth of his son Henoch, Cain built a city. He 
could not have built this city, much less people it, if his 
father and mother, together with Seth, had formed the 
whole human family. 5- Finally, the Bible tells us 
that besides the race of the children of God, there was 
also the race of the children of men, and that "the sons 



ARGUMENTS OF THE POLYGENISTS. 357 

of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were 
fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose, 
and giants were upon the earth in those days." 

235. Arguments of the Polygenists.— Let us ex- 
amine these arguments. In the first place, it is not 
true that Genesis speaks of different human species. 
When La Peyrere distinguishes the man whose creation 
is related, in the first chapter of Genesis from the one 
spoken of in the second chapter, he wrongly interprets 
the text; for in both cases the Hebrew calls by the name 
of " Adam " the reasonable creature that proceeded from 
the hands of God. Even Morton, an American polyge- 
nist, is forced to confess that " the sacred text, according 
to its literal and obvious sense, teaches that all men 
descend from one pair." 1 Moses, in the first book of 
the Pentateuch, sets forth in the account of the earthly 
paradise the history of our first father, whose creation 
he had only mentioned in the general account of crea- 
tion. 2 Afterward he continues the history of the children 
of Adam, without troubling himself about filling in a 
certain number of omissions, because the matter he had 
omitted was understood and could raise no doubt in the 
mind of the common reader. He supposed it useless to 
state in express terms that Adam and Eve had daughters 
as well as sons, and that the brothers had taken their 
sisters as wives; everybody would understand this 
without being told. 

But, say the polygenists, if no other men existed 
except the Adamites, how could Cain, after committing 
fratricide, be afraid of being killed by those whom he 
would meet? We answer: because he knew that men 
would multiply, and as remorse of conscience rendered 
him suspicious, what is there astonishing in his being 

'Morton, " Crania Americana, "Introduction, Philadelphia, 1839. 
2 Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique," vol. i., p. 329 sq. 



358 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

afraid that his crime would be revenged as soon as the 
children of Adam had become more numerous? 

But, again, they tell us, "Cain built a city and called 
it by the name of his son, Henoch." J Voltaire remarked 
on this passage: "Cain built a city immediately after 
he had killed his brother. We may ask what workmen 
had he to build his city, what citizens to people it, what 
arts, what instruments to construct the houses?" These 
workmen, these citizens, could not have been children 

of Adam. 

All this reasoning rests on a false supposition. It 
gives to the word " city" a meaning which it has not in 
this passage of Genesis. Gesenius, a rationalist, ex- 
plains this word as follows: "This word has a very 
extensive signification, and it can be applied to camps. 
. . . In Genesis iv. 17 we must not understand a city any 
more than a cave, because a cave is not built. The 
words of this passage signify nothing but a camp of 
nomads, shielded by a ditch, or an intrenchment, against 
the attacks of wild beasts." 3 Cain, therefore, did not 
build a city, properly speaking, but a "place of refuge," 
in which he believed himself secure against those who 
might seek to kill him. 

The last argument, drawn from the expression "the 
sons of God and the daughters of men " is worthless, 
because it is not necessary to assume that " the sons of 
God" were not Adamitic men. The descendants of 
Adam were the creatures of God and, consequently, the 
sons of God, as much as any other species of men that 
can be conceived. It is generally believed that the sons 
of God are the descendants of Seth, who had remained 
faithful to the Lord, whilst the daughters of men are 

1 Gen. iv. 17. 

2 " La Bible enfin Expliquee," CEuvres, vol. vi., p. 339- 

3 Gesenius, " Thesaurus Linguae Hebraeae," p. 1005. 



HISTORICAL SIDE OF THE QUESTION. 359 

the Cainites, whose fathers had been ungodly persons ; 
but whatever the exact meaning of these expressions 
may be, the interpretation of the polygenists is not a 
logical deduction from the text. 

The polygenists on the one hand pretend to follow 
the Bible, and on the other directly contradict it. If 
they really accept its authority, then they ought to admit 
the unity of human species, because it is evident that 
Holy Scripture teaches this, saying "God hath made 
of one all mankind." ' If they do not accept its author- 
ity, how can they maintain that men existed before 
Adam, or that Adam ever existed, because his existence 
is known to us only through the Bible. 

The error of La Peyrere gained very few adherents 
in truly Christian times like the seventeenth century. 
Its author himself abandoned it. And, what is better, 
he became a Catholic and died a Jesuit. 

236. Historical Side of the Question.— The the- 
sis which La Peyrere maintained was not absolutely 
new. The ancients did not believe in the unity of origin 
of all men. According to their view, most nations 
were autochthonous ; that is, they were supposed to have 
risen or sprung from the soil they inhabited. The 
migrations which gave rise to the various peoples of the 
world had been forgotten, and it appeared quite nat- 
ural to them that they were born upon the soil they 
occupied. This was the belief of the Greeks, the Pelas- 
gians, and the Trojans with regard to their own 
origin. 

It was Christianity which taught the opposite doc- 
trine, i.e., the descent of all men from one common 
ancestor and, consequently, the fraternity of all men. 
If we except the heresy of La Peyrere, we find no 
traces of polygenism until the end of last century. The 
1 Acts xvii. 26; cf. 1. Cor. xv/45; I. Tim. ii. 13. 



360 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

philosophers of that time, who used everything as a 
weapon to undermine Christianity, did not fail to attack 
the dogma of the unity of man's origin. " Only a blind 
person can doubt," says Voltaire, "that the whites, the 
negroes, the Hottentots, the Lapps, the Chinese, and 
the Americans are entirely different races." * 

However, the naturalists of the time vigorously main- 
tained the traditional monogenistic and orthodox opin- 
ion. It was reserved for our century to see the opposite 
view become popular with them. Verey, in his " Nat- 
ural History of Mankind" (1801); Bory de Saint- Vin- 
cent, in an article printed in the " Dictionary of Natural 
History" by Deterville, which appeared in 1825; 
Desmoulins, in a volume published the year following, 
under the title of "Natural History of the Human 
Races," were the champions of the polygenistic theory. 
237. The Strongest Polygenists are in the 
United States.— More recently polygenism has found 
strong adherents in the United States. At the time 
when the slave-trade flourished in America, infidelity 
tried to propagate polygenism in Europe ; in our coun- 
try, political causes helped to increase the number of 
its advocates. The friends of slavery tried to prove that 
the brotherhood of man is idle talk, that the negro in 
particular has nothing in common Avith the white man, 
because he arose from a wholly different stock. 

Among the more or less prominent savants who ad- 
vocated this opinion we may mention Morton, Nott, and 
Gliddon. Morton divides the human race into twenty- 
two families, constituting as many groups of nations. 2 
Nott and Gliddon maintain that "the surface of our 
globe is naturally divided into several zoological prov- 
• inces, of which each forms a distinct centre of creation, 
possessing its own particular fauna and flora. . . . The 
1 " Essai sur les Moetirs." 2 " Crania Americana," p. 4 sq. 



IN WHAT RANKS THE POLYGENISTS ARE FOUND. 36 I 

human family does not form an exception to this rule ; 
mankind is divided into several species, of which each 
constitutes a primitive element in the fauna of its 
particular province." 1 Gliddon speaks of no less than 
sixty-five families of mankind, embracing over 270 sub- 
divisions. 2 Other Americans are still more extravagant. 
Knox carries the autochthonist theory so far as to as- 
sert that Frenchmen cannot live and prosper in Corsica; 
the European cannot transplant himself to America. 
Agassiz also held that men were created by nations, 
each one having its own language, which he compares 
to the song of birds and the cries of animals. 

238. In what Ranks the Polygenists are Found. 
— The polygenists of our country teach the fixity of 
species, and argue from the actual existence of human 
varieties to their primordial and original existence. 
The position has changed, however, and it is in the 
ranks of the scientists who maintain the variability of 
species that we must to-day seek the polygenists ; that is 
to say, among materialists and atheists and defenders of 
transform ism without limit. Man, they tell us, was not 
created man ; he became man only through a series of 
transformations. The inferior species gradually per- 
fected themselves; first, they acquired language and 
reason, and finally they became intelligent beings. 
Hence nature, by various means, produced various hu- 
man species. Consequently, what Holy Scripture teaches 
about our origin is irreconcilable with the teachings of 
science. This is Haeckel's view, as appears from what 
follows : 

"The hypothesis of the unity of the human species, 
which the In do- Germanic nations borrowed from the 

1 " Types of Mankind," p. 465 sq. 

2 "Indigenous Races of the Earth," Philadelphia, 1857, pp. 
618-637. 



362 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Semitic myth in the Mosaic writings, is absolutely unten- 
able. . . . The great and never-ending debate on this 
point is based entirely on a wrong statement of the ques- 
tion. As it would be absurd to ask whether all hunting- 
dogs and all race-horses descend from one pair, so also it 
is absurd to inquire whether all Englishmen and all Ger- 
mans come from a single pair, etc. There was no more 
one first pair than there was one first Englishman or 
one first German, one first race-horse or one first hunt- 
ing-dog. Every new species always proceeds from a 
preceding species, and the slow work of metamorphosis 
includes a long chain of individuals. ... It is impossi- 
ble that the twelve human races or species 1 which we are 
eoine to examine should have gone forth from one sin- 
gle pair. . . . According to the Biblical account of 
Genesis, . . . these human races would all descend 
from one couple, Adam and Eve, and consequently 
would be varieties of a single species. Every impartial 
observer, however, will admit that the differences among 
these . . . races are as great and even greater than the 
specific differences laid down by zoologists and botanists 
to distinguish animal and vegetable species. Therefore 
Quenstedt, a distinguished paleontologist, is perfectly 
right when he says : ' If the negro and Caucasian were 
snails, all the zoologists would affirm unanimously that 
they are species, which could never have come from 
one and the same pair, from which they gradually sepa- 
rated.'" 2 Haeckel is the type of polygenetic trans- 

formists. 

1 Haeckel holds that there are twelve distinct human species 
(inhis" GeschichtederSchopfung,"p. 598^., and in his " Anthro- 
pogenic"). Formerly Haeckel contented himself with ten. See 
his Conference held at Jena, November, 1865, ' Ueber den 
Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts," in the " Gesammelte Pop- 
ulare Vortrage," vol. i., 1878, p. 95. 

2 Haeckel, " Geschichte der Schopfung," pp. 295, 296. 



THE ERROR OF THE POLYGENISTIC SCHOOL. 363 

239. Most Naturalists are Monogenists. — For- 
tunately, science lias other representatives who are 
less one-sided and better fitted to speak on this ques- 
tion. These never hesitated to declare their belief in 
the unity of the human species. Among them in the 
last century were Linnaeus and Buffon; in ours, Cu- 
vier, Miiller, Humboldt, Prichard, Waitz, St. Hilaire, 
Steffens, Schubert, Rudolf, A. Wagner, Baer, Myer, 
Wilbrand, Flourens, H. Miller, J. Herschel, Lyell, 
Huxley, Quatrefages, etc. Burmeister said that those 
who defend the theory of the unity of mankind are 
"for the most part insufficiently acquainted with the 
results of natural science." Every unbiassed man must 
admit that most of these savants were no novices in 
natural science. If there are scientific men who need 
not be defended against the charge of insufficient ac- 
quaintance with the results of natural science, they are 
Alexander von Humboldt, Prichard, and A. de Qua- 
trefages; the last of these is looked upon as the 
prince of anthropologists. It would be very unjust to 
accuse these men, as Burmeister does, of being preju- 
diced in favor of the Bible, because many of them are 
rationalists ; Humboldt praises modern science because, 
on the Continent at least, it has at last thrown off 
"Semitic influences." 

Let us now consider the arguments the polygenists 
bring in favor of their theory. 

240. In what the Error of the Polygenistic 
School Consists. — The polygenistic school err in con- 
founding races with species ; they pretend that there is 
no difference between these terms. The monogenists, 
on the contrary, acknowledge that there are several 
races of men, but affirm, as the Bible teaches, that there 
is only one species. But what do we understand by 
species? Species is a collection of individuals having 



364 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

the same essential characters, issued from one and the 
same primitive pair, and having the power to reproduce 
themselves indefinitely. A group of species having the 
same common characters is called a genus. Species is 
unchangeable in its essential characters, but its accessory 
characters may be modified under the influence of vari- 
ous causes, and thus give rise to varieties and races.. 
Varieties are individuals of the same species, which are 
distinguished from the common type by accidental mod- 
ifications. These modifications are not essential or 
specific, but changeable and unstable in their nature, 
although, under circumstances, they may become fixed 
and durable. By the action of the natural law of rever- 
sion, varieties return to the primordial type, at least 
when outside causes, and especially the union between 
individuals of the same variety, do not render these 
transient characters permanent, conformably to the law 
of heredity, which transmits to children the qualities 
that belonged to their parents. When the accessory 
qualities which constitute a variety have become fixed 
through generations, they form what we call a race. 

241. All Men Form but One Species. — Noav, in 
applying to the human species these notions, accepted 
by all ancient naturalists, it will be easy for us to ac- 
count for all the phenomena which mankind presents 
at the present time. The solution of the problem is 
this : All men who live upon earth form but one single 
species, but this species includes several races; all these 
races have, as starting-point, varieties, produced acci- 
dentally or naturally by various causes — varieties the 
characters of which have become hereditary. Varieties 
might manifest themselves sometimes through sud- 
den change in individuals, but generally they are the 
accumulated result of gradual modifications brought on 
by circumstances. Hence the error of the polygenists 



CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RACES. 365 

consists, as we have observed, in confounding races with 
species, and in pretending that the accessory characters 
which distinguish races are specific characters. We 
shall show that these characters are not really specific, 
but that they have, or at least can have, an accidental 
origin. Now, to prove that science is not in opposition 
to Holy Scripture as regards the unity of the human 
species, it is sufficient to show that this unity is scien- 
tifically capable of explanation, and that anthropology 
is unable to prove the plurality of human species. 

242. No Character in the Races of Man is 
Specific. — What establishes the possibility of the 
common origin of all men is that there does not exist 
in any race a distinctive character which is not found 
sometimes in individuals of another race. None of 
these characters, therefore, are specific, for otherwise 
Ave should meet them only in the species to which they 
properly belong. But since they appear accidentally 
in individuals of different races, it follows that they may 
have originated in the same manner, and that they have 
become common to certain parts of mankind by means 
of the "influence of environment and heredity." To 
convince ourselves of this, we need only study suc- 
cessively the various race characters, and show by the 
light of observation and experiment that they are all 
accidental and not essential to the species ; consequently 
they are the result of circumstances, not qualities 
without which it is impossible to conceive an individual 
belonging to our species. 1 

243. No Classification of Human Races Made 
so Far. — This is so true that race characters in mankind 
are not absolute, but relative, one might almost say, 
arbitrary; hence until now anthropologists have been 
unable to arrive at an understanding in regard to them, 

^igouroux, " Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., pp. 324, 325. 



366 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

some adopting- one character as sufficiently distinctive 
of race, others rejecting it, as subject to too many 
exceptions. This is the reason why, in spite of the 
facts accumulated by numerous savants, no classifica- 
tion of races has to this day been made which has 
been unanimously or even generally accepted. Blum- 
enbach (i 752-1 840) , the founder of anthropology, divides 
the human species into five races: The Caucasian or 
white race, the Mongolian (Asiatic) or yellow race, the 
Ethiopian (African) or black race, the American or red 
race, and the Malay or brown race. But Blumenbach 
himself acknowledges that his classification is arbitrary. 
St. Hilaire, like Retzius, divides nations into long- 
skulled and short-skulled (dolichocephalic and brachy- 
cephalic) ; among the first he includes elongated and 
oval skulls (Ethiopian and Caucasian races) ; among the 
second, pyramidal skulls (Mongolian race). Again, he 
divides both classes according to the position of the jaw, 
with which the formation of the forehead harmonizes, 
into straight- jawed and slanting- jawed races (orthog- 
nathic and prognathic). In this way he gets four prin- 
cipal types. To the long-skulled races with straight 
jaws belong the Celtic, Germanic, Romanic, and Hindoo 
races ; to the round-skulled races with straight jaws, the 
Slavs, the Lapps, the Persians, the Turks, the Poly- 
nesians, etc; to the round-skulled with slanting jaws, 
the Tartars, Mongols, Malays, and several western 
American tribes; to the long-skulled races with slant- 
ing jaws, the Australians, Chinese, Japanese, negroes, 
Esquimaux, and most of the eastern American tribes. 

Mr. Latham distinguishes three great varieties : The 
Mongolides, Atlantides, and Japhetides, which he sub- 
divides again into a multitude of branches. 1 The Bel- 

1 R. G. Latham, " The Natural History of the Varieties of Man," 
p. 30. 



CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RACES. 367 

gian naturalist, M. d'Omalius, of Holloy, classifying the 
races of men by the color of their skin, admits five : 
the White, Black, Yellow, Brown, and Red. The polyge- 
nists, as we saw before, propose the most various and 
most complicated divisions. 

The classification of races is so difficult that Quatre- 
fages, after having devoted the greater part of his life 
to anthropology, finally renounces every attempt at a 
scientific classification. It is acknowledged by every 
school that the classification of the human species is yet 
to be made, and all the efforts made thus far are open to 
criticism. A. Hovelacque says: 

"It is very difficult to classify races; in doing so 
we must ignore characters, which are just as im- 
portant as the color of the skin. There are, for in- 
stance, great differences between the Blacks of the 
southern Soudan and the Blacks of the Andaman 
Islands; between the Blacks of the south of India 
(Dravidians) and the Papuans of New Guinea. The 
nature of the hair, the cranial form, the height, 
are equally important characters; but they cannot 
serve as basis for an ethnographical classification. It 
is sufficient to recall to mind that some black races 
have crisp, others woolly hair; that some individuals 
of these races have oblong, and others round heads. 
It is equally impossible to adopt a linguistic basis. 
In fact, one and the same linguistic family very 
often embraces peoples very different from each other : 
for instance, the Lapps and Finlanders, so different 
in race, speak idioms which belong to the same 
family. Nor is a geographical classification acceptable. 
Asia, for instance, contains black races, .like the 
southern Hindoos (Dravidians), white races, like a 
great number of the northern Hindoos, and people 
who belong to the so-called yellow races. Oceanica 



368 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

with its Papuans and Polynesians, Africa with its Blacks 
and Semitics, are in a similar position. Can they be 
classified according to their civilization by placing first 
the inferior races, and then passing to the pastoral people, 
to the agriculturists, and finally to the more cultivated 
peoples of Europe? This seems equally inadmissible. 
In fact, we need give only one instance to show the 
incorrectness of this method, for we must in that case 
separate from their relatives the American tribes that 
still lag on the lowest steps of the human ladder — such 
as the Botocudos of Brazil and the inhabitants of Tierra 

del Fuego." 1 

There is, perhaps, not a single negro tribe, if we 
may rely on Prichard's authority, in which all the char- 
acters ascribed to the negro are found fully developed. 
These characters are distributed among different tribes 
in various ways, combined in every instance with some 
of the characters belonging to Europeans or Asiatics. 2 
The alleged persistence of the negro type, says Waitz, 
is mostly imaginary ; this type is in reality confined to 
comparatively few peoples, and we find among negroes 
many other types, which may partly be considered as 
transitions to European forms and partly as variations 
and modifications of the negro type itself. 3 

Thus, according to the most recent works, there is no 
really scientific classification of the races of mankind. 
In other words, all the divisions that have been proposed 
are arbitrary ; and thus far it has not been possible to 
discover any character peculiar to each race. 

244. The Principal Distinguishing Characters. 

From the preceding statement it follows that the 

principal characters which distinguish men or nations 

1 A. Hovelacque, " Les Races Humaines," Paris, 1882, pp. 7, 8. 

2 Prichard, " Researches," etc., vol. ii., p. 34°- 

3 Waitz, " Anthropologic, " vol. i., p. 339- 



ENVIRONMENT AND THE RACES OF MANKIND. 369 

from one another are differences in organic conforma- 
tion—the color, the hair, and the language. These are 
the characters we shall now examine in order to find out 
whether they are original, or only accidental modifica- 
tions of the primitive type that have become stable in 
the course of time. 

245. Influence of Environment on the Char- 
acters of the Races of Mankind.— If we examine 
these characters we shall find that they may arise from 
the influence of environment and of heredity. By the 
influence of environment we understand the influence 
of climate, nourishment, mode of life, customs, civiliza- 
tion — in a word, all that is connected with the place 
and time in which man lives and that can exercise a 
certain influence upon the physical, intellectual, and 
moral development of the individual. The influence of 
environment is unquestionable. Here are a number of 
well-proven facts. 

Vegetables whiten when they are excluded from the 
light; and they not only whiten on the surface, but 
the absence of light affects the texture of the plant, 
its taste, and the properties of its juice. The 
animals of the polar regions turn white at the 
approach of winter. The small and shabby bulls 
of Sologne, if transported into the valley of the 
Loire take an altogether different shape and quality 
in one or two generations. The Swiss bull trans- 
ported into the plain of Lombardy becomes a Lom- 
bard bull in a very short time. Two generations are 
sufficient to alter the small brown bees of Bur- 
gundy into the large yellow bees of Bresse. In the 
warm regions of South America bulls transported from 
Europe lose their hair by degrees. Sheep lose their 
wool in the West Indies and Guinea, and are covered 

with hair. The dahlia sent from Mexico to the botan- 
24 



370 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Ical garden of Madrid in 1791 produced a flower 
which was in no respect remarkable. It was culti- 
vated, not as an ornamental plant, but because it 
was believed to be a substitute for the potato. How- 
ever, its new environment transformed it entirely. In 
1 8 10 some dahlia flowers in a seed-bed attracted atten- 
tion, and florists began to cultivate them carefully. 
In 1834 they had produced the varieties which to-day 
make the dahlia one of the chief ornaments of our flower- 
gardens. All the varieties of pigeons now known are 
descended from one species— the rock-dove (Columba 
livid). There are over 280 well-marked varieties to- 
day. 

Dogs furnish the most striking examples of what en- 
vironment can do. "A man had gone to live in the 
polar circle ; his dog followed him, and. developed the 
thick fur of the setter ; the man went to the intertropi- 
cal regions with his companion, and the dog lost all 
his hair, becoming the Guinea dog, improperly called 
the Turkish dog. It was changed not only on the out- 
side ; even the skeleton had been altered, the bony head 
like the rest. Who, even if he had never studied anat- 
omy would confound the skull of the bull-dog with that 
of the greyhound? ... If we estimate the number 
of canine breeds at 300, we shall fall far below the 

truth." 

246 Other Influences that Vary the Charac- 
ters in the Races of Mankind.— The influence of 
civilization and environment upon man is clearly es- 
tablished by a number of facts. If man does not always 
suffer as great changes from the action of climate as 
animals it is because his intelligence furnishes him with 
the means to protect himself against its influence. He 

> Quatrefages, article " Races" in the " Dictionnaire Encyclo- 
pedique des Sciences Medicales." 



OTHER INFLUENCES. 37 1 

knows how to combat both the heat of the tropics and 
the cold of the polar circle. He carries along with him 
his regimen, customs, and mode of life, and thus neu- 
tralizes, in part at least, the modifying influence of cli- 
mate and external conditions. 

However, we must not believe that man can escape 
these influences altogether. Climate, social state, and 
mode of life have a greater influence upon the physique 
of man than is generally admitted. Want, slavery, and 
oppression tend to lower the human type to that of the 
beast. This has been observed in the geophagous tribes 
of Orinoco, who are reduced to feed on clay during a 
part of the year, and in the Digger Indians, formerly 
inhabiting the State of Oregon, who lived on insects and 
roots. 

The settled Arabs of the Hauran are of high stature 
and have a very rich beard, whilst their nomad breth- 
ren, the Bedouins, exposed to all the vicissitudes of an 
unsteady life, are small and have hardly any beard. 
Their life in the open air with head uncovered explains 
the thickness of their skulls, as also their piercing 
look, though no difference between them and settled 
Arabs is remarked until the age of sixteen. The ne- 
groes of Brazil, who wrestle by knocking their heads 
against each other, have the front of the skull consider- 
ably harder and thicker than the hind part. It is said 
that Cuvier's skull had become almost transparent at 
his death, so thin had it grown on account of his con- 
tinual mental work. This thinness of the skull is also 
noticed, as we are assured, in certain artists — particu- 
larly in musicians. In many countries varied and very 
marked differences have been proved to exist between 
the upper and the lower classes. Hence, the Arabs of 
the north compare their nobles with the palm-tree and 
the common people with the brier. When different 



372 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

modes of life produce such differences in physique in the 
same country, hoAV much greater must be the effect 
when there is a complete change of environment. 

By a wonderful disposition of Providence, man differs 
from animals by being able to live in every part of the 
earth ; he bears the cold of Greenland and the heat of 
Senegal. But, although he can adapt himself to every 
climate, he cannot escape its influence. Man is born 
white in every latitude ; the child among the tribes of 
the Upper Nile turns black only about a year after its 
birth. The negro type transported to another environ- 
ment is modified very rapidly and very distinctly. 
Thus, the negro transported from the south to the 
north changes after a few generations; his color be- 
comes lighter, his features change to his advantage ; the 
characteristic odor gradually disappears, his blood loses 
its plasticity, and his intelligence becomes more devel- 
oped. "In the space of 150 years," says Elisee Re- 
clus, "the negro has overcome a full quarter of the dis- 
tance which separated him from the white man in outside 
appearance. If other influences do not balance that of 
climate, it may well happen that, after a certain num- 
ber of centuries, all Americans, from wherever their 
ancestors may have come, will have the color of the 

natives. " 

In Tasmania environment alone, very probably, has 
modified the negro type and formed at the same time a 
peculiar and homogeneous population. In the same 
way the native of Europe and his descendants undergo 
a transformation in America ; their heads become smaller 
and incline toward the pyramidal form, their necks be- 
come longer, their jaws more massive, their cheeks 
hollow, their bones stretch, and their fingers need a 
special size glove. This is the so-called Yankee 
type, a new type, which approaches more and more that 



INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY ON RACE. 373 

of the natives of his adopted country, the Hurons, the 
Iroquois— in a word, the Redskins. The same Eng- 
lish type has changed so much in New Zealand and 
Australia that the eye can easily distinguish the children 
of the old soil from those of the new. The French who 
have dwelt in Canada for a number of years have 
changed their color, their physiognomy, and their hair. 
Different environments produce different results. 
The Jew is white in the countries of the north, brown 
in Portugal, black in certain parts of Africa and Asia. 
The royal dynasty in England is of German origin, 
and has always intermarried with German families; 
nevertheless, to-day it has developed the characteristics 
of the English race in the highest degree. The influ- 
ence of environment on the constitution is, therefore, 
unquestionable. 

247. Influence of Heredity on Race.— Heredity- 
is another factor which explains many of the phenomena 
we are studying. It is the property of living beings to 
repeat or reproduce themselves with the same forms and 
same attributes. A Avhite man transported into a warm 
country takes so dark a color that he might be taken 
for a black man ; his son, however, is born white, and 
remains so as long as he is not exposed to the same 
atmospheric conditions as his father. Intellectual qual- 
ities are transmitted as well as physical characters ; in 
the family of the great Bach there were thirty-two 
musicians. 

An accidental quality, a spontaneous variation, may 
be transmitted by heredity, and thus constitute a race. 
We shall give some examples. In 1770 a bull without 
horns was born in Paraguay, which, in spite of every 
effort to suppress this peculiarity, on account of the 
difficulty with which these animals are caught with the 
lasso, gave rise to a numerous breed. The so-called 



374 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Ancon and Mauchamp sheep are also due to accidental 
deviations. The first originated in Massachusetts in 
175 i, and the second at Mauchamp, France, in 1828. In 
both cases, it is true, man interfered by isolating and 
skilfully crossing the animals whose characters he 
wished to perpetuate ; but the first modification was spon- 
taneous. * 

The abrupt variations which animals present may 
also be observed at times in the human species. In 
1 71 7 there was born in England Edward Lambert, whose 
body was partly covered with a shaggy skin, which gave 
him the name of the "porcupine man." Lambert trans- 
mitted this strange peculiarity to his six children and 
his two grandchildren, although his wife and daughter- 
in-law did not show the least trace thereof. The Col- 
burn family is also remarkable, for during four gen- 
erations its members had six ringers on each hand. 
There can be no doubt that if in these two cases selection 
had intervened so as to isolate the families by allowing 
the members to marry only persons who had these curi- 
ous anomalies, races would have resulted with a shaggy 
skin and with six fingers. The Anamese are called 
Giao-Chi, a name signifying that the great toe of the 
foot is turned aside from the second. This trait distin- 
guishes the true Anamese, and has distinguished them 
for centuries. Similar peculiarities, produced spontane- 
ously, are numerous ; and this law of heredity or trans- 
mission is admitted by all naturalists. 

Frederick William and Frederick II., of Prussia, 
hunted for tall men throughout Europe ; and it is said 
that if money could not buy them they stole them. By 
making these giants marry the tallest women of their 
kingdom, these two sovereigns produced a breed of tall 
men, whose descendants can still be seen at and near 
Potsdam. 



environment and heredity. 375 

248. The Influences of Environment and He- 
redity may Combine. — The influences of heredity 
and environment may combine and work toward the 
same end, thus making- nascent differences all the 
more stable. Environment leads insensibly to more or 
less considerable and marked changes; heredity fixes 
and perpetuates them in such a manner that modifica- 
tions due to climate or to mode of life, for example, can 
be transmitted in a certain measure, even in another 
climate, with other habits and a different civilization. 
Finally, the crossing or mixing of races produces new 
modifications, or sub-races, able to perpetuate themselves 
with their new characters, when the circumstances are 
favorable . 

With the help of these unquestionable principles, all 
the differences which distinguish the races of men may 
be explained without great difficulty, and in a satisfactory 
manner, as we shall show in our next chapter. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.— Continued. 

Preliminary remarks. — Color of the skin. — Discovery of Dr. Mal- 
pighi. — Causes of different pigments in races. — Character 
of the hair. — Form of the skull. — Custom of some peoples to 
give the skull a certain form. — No part of the human body is 
more subject to change than the skull. — Causes. — Examples. 
— Cardinal Wiseman and the first series of generations.— 
Measurements of the skull. — Relation between talent and 
cranial capacity. — Volume of the brain. — Relation be- 
tween intelligence and weight of the brain. — Comparative 
study of the human skeleton. — Different languages no argu- 
ment against monogenism. — Rapid increase of mankind. — 
Geographical objections against monogenism. — Origin of the 
Polynesians. — Of the Americans. — Conclusion. 

After having explained how races may originate, we 
have now to prove that the same essential traits are 
found in all men, and that, consequently, we form but 
one single species. In fact, we resemble one another: 
firstly, in physical structure, and, secondly, from the 
moral point of view. 

249. Preliminary Remarks. — Man, compared with 
other organic species, be they animals or plants, presents 
the least differences. Stature, color of skin, propor- 
tion of the different members, all the characters Avhich 
polygenists adduce to disprove the unity of mankind, 
differ more in most animals than in man. The canine 
species, for instance, is divided into countless varieties, 
more marked than the races of men. The distance 
which separates the pug-dog from the bull-dog, the 

skull of the wild-boar from that of the domestic hog, is 

376 



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE COLORED PEOPLE. 377 

much greater than that which distinguishes the neoro 
from the European. As to color, it is so accessory a 
character that three years sufficed for the famous breeder, 
John Sebright, by skilful crossing, to give to pigeons 
the colors he chose. 

The arguments against the unity of the human spe- 
cies to which polygenists attach the greatest importance 
may be reduced to the following: (1) the color of 
the skin; (2) the character of the hair; (3) the form 
of the skull; (4) the volume of the brain; (5) the plu- 
rality of languages ; (6) the rapid increase of mankind ; 
and, finally, (7) geographical objections— e.g., those 
drawn from the origin of the Polynesians and Amer- 
icans. 

250. (1) The Color of the Skin.— It is especially the 
color of the skin to which polygenists appeal as an argu- 
ment against the unity of our species. Pliny says: 
Who would believe in the existence of the Ethio- 
pians without having seen them?" When Herodotus, 
during the Olympic games, related that there are black 
and white races, and that we must draw a distinction 
between them, he caused immense enthusiasm. Vol- 
taire, as we saw already, thought it could be believed 
only by blind persons, or by such as had never seen 
people of a different race, that all men are descended 
from one pair. 

251.— The Catholic Church and the Colored 
People. — Even to-day there are many persons, little 
acquainted, it is true, with natural science, who lay such 
stress on the color of the skin that they do not believe 
that the negro is the offspring of Adam. We find con- 
gregations that do not admit negroes as regular church - 
members. The Catholic Church knows no such dis- 
tinction ; she considers black and white as the children 
of the same Adam and as redeemed by the same Saviour, 



378 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Jesus Christ. Therefore, she never hesitated to receive 
the negroes into her fold. From the very beginning, 
she canonized the black man as well as the white, raised 
the images of both, side by side, upon her altars, and 
invoked the intercession of the one as well as of the 
other. At all times she sent out her missionaries to 
preach the Gospel to every creature, and at all times she 
received all, black and white, yellow and copper-colored, 
with open arms, into her communion, pressed them to 
her bosom., broke the same bread of life for them, and 
looked upon them all as the children of the same Father, 
who created them; of the same Son, who redeemed 
them; of the same Holy Ghost, who sanctified them. 

As 'in the past, so in our days, the Catholic Church 
makes the greatest efforts to gather the negroes into 
her fold. Catholic bishops, the princes of the Church, 
lay their anointed hands upon the head of negro youths, 
to raise them to the sacred dignity of the priesthood, 
to bestow upon them the same power that they pos- 
sess ; that is to say, the power given to no angel of 
heaven, to offer upon the altar the unbloody and im- 
maculate sacrifice of the Mass. While some Christian 
ladies would be shocked to kneel alongside of a poor 
negro woman, we see colored girls knocking at the gate 
of Catholic convents, asking to be received into the 
community. And if nothing else debars her from this 
favor, neither her poverty nor her color will be an ob- 
stacle. The poorest black girl is admitted as well as 
the noblest white lady. Both will receive the same 
welcome, and both may be seen walking side by side, 
partaking of the same privileges, kneeling at the same 
table to receive the same bread of life ; there is no dis- 
tinction, not even in dress. 

In fact, why should the Church draw any line between 
man and man on account of their color? Does she not 



MONOGENISM AND THE COLOR OF THE SKIN. 379 

number among her greatest saints and most learned 
men members of the black race as well as of the white ? 

252. The Color of the Skin Forms no Argu- 
ment against Monogenism. — Though the color of the 
skin furnishes an excellent race character, it forms no 
argument against monogenism, and cannot determine 
species. The yellow, red, and black colors have too 
many intermediaries and are not characteristic enough 
for this purpose. 

Darwin himself acknowledges that there is nothing 
more changeable, or, to use his own expression, "more 
floating than color." l 

We can find, the whole color series in a single animal 
species. "The goldfish of China is yellow, with a mixt- 
ure of black in all possible proportions, so that it may 
pass from pure yellow to absolute black, through a series 
of gradual transitions; however, it would be impossible 
to consider the series of intermediary colors as a genetical 
series, because experience proves that all these varia- 
tions can be found in one generation, issued from the 
same couple." 2 

Even in the negro the black color is so little essential 
that at the moment of birth the negro is not black ; he 
becomes so when he is exposed to the open air. 3 

Pruner-Bey found that the new-born negro does not 

show the color of his parents ; he is of a reddish color 

mixed with bistre; the red is less pronounced than 

that of the new-born European. This color, however, 

is more or less dark in various parts of the body. From 

reddish it soon turns into a gray slate color, and finally 

corresponds to the color of the parents, the change 

being more or less rapid according to the environment 

in which the negro grows up. In the Soudan the 

1 Hartmann," Der Darwinisrrms," p. 23. 

2 Blumenbach, " Einheit," etc., p. 149. 

8 Pruner-Bey, " Memoires stir les Negres," p. 327. 



380 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

metamorphosis— that is, the development of the so-called 
pigment — is generally completed in one year; in Egypt 
it takes three years. 

253. Cause of the Coloring of the Skin. — The 
color of the skin is almost solely due to differences of 
temperature and climate. "Where the heat is excessive, 
as in Senegambia and in Guinea, the people are entirely 
black; where it is somewhat less strong, as on the east- 
ern coast of Africa, the population shows a less dark 
tint; where the climate is more temperate, as in Barbary, 
Mongolia, Arabia, men are brown; finally, in the tem- 
perate and cold parts of Asia and Europe they are white. 
Hence heat is the great cause which modifies the color 
of man, and although there are many races and sub- 
races, nevertheless there is but one species. Micro- 
scopic observation has taught us the following facts 
about the location of the coloring matter. The hu- 
man skin consists of two layers, the outer skin {epi- 
dermis) and the inner skin {cutis) . The former is divided 
into the cuticle {stratum corneum) and the stratum mucosum, 
or rete Malpighii, named after its discoverer. The cutis 
and the cuticle are the same in all races ; differences ap- 
pear only in the cells of the stratum mucosum, which are 
filled with a granular coloring matter. According as 
these color cells are confined to the bottom of the stratum 
mucosum, or become thicker, and in some few cases even 
stretch up into the cuticle, the color of the skin is lighter 
or darker. Certain parts of the body are more strongly 
colored in every man, as warts; freckles, moles, and 
stains in different parts of the body are produced' by 
the same cause which produces the color of the negro ; 
Europeans have been observed in whom the whole skin 
becomes quite dark, although only for a time. 1 The 
1 Peschel, " Volkerkunde," p. 91 ; Burmeister, " Geologische Bil- 
der," vol. ii., p. 134- 



THE CAUSE OF COLORING PIGMENT. 38 1 

skin, therefore, has a tendency to become darker, and we 
may consequently believe that in the youth of the hu- 
man race, and under the influence of other climatic con- 
ditions, this tendency was developed and became per- 
manent in the races which at present are not white. 1 

In negroes and persons with a dark skin the stratum 
mucosum, or pigment, as it is called very often, is more 
considerable in quantity than in whites. Consequently, 
the color of the skin in various races does not depend 
on a difference of structure, but solely on the amount 
of granular coloring matter in the cells of the mucous 
layer. 

If the pigment is wanting, the negro is white. Indeed, 
there exist undoubted cases of albinism among negroes. 
"In the case of two albino children," says Pickering, 
' the negro aspect had so entirely disappeared that they 
might have passed for children of Europeans had it 
not been for the remarkable appearance of the hair, 
which I could compare only to a white fleece." 2 

254. The Cause of Coloring - Pigment.— But what 
causes this difference in pigment in the various races? 
Certainly the climate is the main cause. "Color in the 
negro," says Lepsius, "is the work of the sun." 3 The 
ancients already noticed the influence of climate on the 
color of man. Theodectes of Phaselis, the ancient 
tragic poet, sang: "The Ethiopeans owe to the god of 
the sun, who approaches them in his course, the dark 
brightness of the soot with which he colors their bodies. " 4 

"In all races, whatever their color may be, except in 
the black, which is too dark to admit of deeper color, 
the skin colors under the action of the air, and especially 

1 A. Wagner, " Geschichte der Urwelt," vol. ii., p. 254. 

2 Pickering, "The Races of Man," London, 2d ed., p. 188. 
3 " Nubische Grammatik," Berlin, 1884. 

4 In " Strabo," xv., 24th Didot's ed., p. 593. 



3 82 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

of the sun. Among the Hindoos everybody is colored, 
and here our views as to distinction of color are greatly 
modified. Mongolians, under the influence of the sun, 
have become as dark as negroes ; while there are whites 
in tropical countries who might be taken for yellow- 
bronzed Mongolians." * 

Heat produces the darkening of the skin, because it 
renders the secretion of the viscous liquid constituting 
the pigment more abundant. It is well known that the 
negro loses a part of this pigment when taken to a 
northern country. It is always in the prominent parts 
of the face, as the nose, ears, etc., that we first observe 
a lightening of the color in brown persons. 2 To the 
action of the sun we may add other less important causes ; 
for example, exposure to open air and the mode of life, 
which act not only on the structure in general, as we 
saw in the preceding chapter, but also on the production 
of the pigment and the color of the skin. 

The vegetable kingdom is governed by the same 
laws as the animal kingdom. The coloring matter of 
the black grape, for instance, is also a kind of pigment. 
For the black and the white grape are but one species. 

255. The Color of the Skin is Not a Specific 
Character in Man.— We might cite numerous other 
facts, but the above are sufficient to show that the 
color of the skin is not a specific, but only a racial, 
character in man, which may arise from external 
and accidental circumstances, may change under the 
influence of climate and mode of life. By a wonderful 
disposition of Providence, man, unlike the animals, ac- 
climatizes himself all over the globe ; he is not confined, 
like the animal, to one country; he bears the glacial cold 
^Topinard, in the " Revue d' Anthropologic," Oct., 1886, 

p. 594. 

2 Pruner-Bey, " Memoires sur les Negres," p. 3° 8 - 



THE HAIR IN HUMAN RACES. 583 

of the north pole and the burning heat of the torrid 
zone, although there is a difference of temperature of 
more than one hundred degrees between the two. 
Thus man has become cosmopolitan. Thanks to his 
constitution, so much more plastic than that of other 
animals, he is able to adapt himself to every zone and 
climate. 

In temperate regions, Ave sustain the changes of the 
seasons by changing our garments and mode of life. In 
other zones these means would not always be sufficient. 
Our fellow-men, thanks to their physical constitution, 
can live with the greatest ease even under the burn- 
ing sun of the tropics, for the skin of the negro has 
been harmonized with the country where he lives. 1 

256. (2) The Hair. — Closely connected with the color 
of the skin are the color and character of the hair, for there 
is nearly always a correlation between them ; the black 
man, for instance, has always black hair. Several an- 
thropologists have attached great importance to the hair 
in classifying human races. Some polygenists have 
even made the attempt, as we saw before, to separate 
men into species on this slight basis. 

257. The Hair is no Distinguishing Character 
in Human Races. — The color of hair varies so much 
that it can hardly be considered as distinguishing races ; 
the character of the hair is more important, and some 
modern anthropologists have laid great stress on this. 
We can distinguish smooth or straight, curly or wavy, 
frizzy or tufted hair. The form, of the transverse sec- 
tion of single hairs differs; it is sometimes round, some- 
times elliptical. If the largest diameter of the trans- 
verse section of a hair is 100, the smallest diameter sinks 
from 95 in the South Americans to 34 in the Papuans 
of New Guinea. The tendency to curliness and to friz- 

1 Vigouroux, " Les Livres Saints," etc., p. 343 sq. 



->84 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

ziness increases with increased flatness of the hair, 
with which greater fineness is also usually connected. 
Generally speaking, the Americans and Mongolians 
have round, straight hair, the European and Semitic 
races curly, and the negroes and Australians frizzy hair; 
tufted hair is found among the Papuans, Hottentots, 
Bushmen, and a few other African tribes. But here 
also we find gradual transitions, which make a sharp 
separation impossible. We find important differences 
also in the growth of the beard, and of the hair in 
other parts of the body ; but these are not distinct and 
invariable enough to make them a distinguishing mark 

of race. 

Dr. Waldey, professor of anatomy in the University 
of Strassburg, although he attaches great importance to 
the hair as a means of classifying human races, never- 
theless says : 

"It would be a great mistake to distinguish races by 
a single character, such as the color or form of the hair. 
By means of the hair alone we cannot make a sound and 
useful classification of the races ; to use this means only 
would lead to a defective division." x 

258. Interesting Discoveries on the Color and 
Change of the Hair.— Only very recently Dr. Fritsch, 
in a paper read before the " Society for Anthropology," 2 
made some very interesting statements with regard 
to the color and change of the hair. The following 
is the substance of his essay. 

"The color of the hair changes with age. This 
change takes place gradually, beginning at the root 
of the hair. Therefore, in childhood, when the color 
changes, the two ends of the hair are sometimes differ- 
ently colored. In young Botocudos, savages whose hair 

1 " Atlas der Menschlichen tmd Thierischen Haare," 1884. 

2 Berlin, April 28, 1888. 



THE HAIR OF NEGROES. 385 

is very dark, the ends of the hair are found not to show 
the same development of the pigment. A boy nine 
years old was decidedly of the blonde type ; that is to say, 
his hair was light reddish. The hair of a blonde child 
differs, microscopically, very little from the white hair of 
the aged, as regards the pigment; only the hair of the 
aged has not the fineness and smoothness of the child's 
hair. It is also destitute of the soft and evenly-diffused 
pigment, which can always be recognized in light-colored 
hair. This pigment, under the microscope, does not 
appear granular like the ordinary pigment; it is much 
thinner ; so that Ave are justified in asserting that red hair 
has no pigment, or at least very little. Hence red- 
haired men very often have a particularly white and 
fresh color of the skin, because the pigment is not so 
plenteous in the upper skin when it is lacking in the 
hair. Hair cut from the head of a living person, with 
its secretions undiminished, has quite a different appear- 
ance from the hair cut from a corpse. Any hair-dealer 
can tell at a glance whether hair was cut from a living 
or a dead person. With regard to the question why the 
hair turns gray, whether suddenly or gradually, it is 
now generally agreed to be due to the pigment with- 
drawing, either suddenly— through fright, for instance— 
or slowly, as in the case of old age." 

Thus, in spite of differences of color and form, hair 
is essentially the same in all men, and it changes by 
insensible gradations. 

Light hair prevails in the north, while the dark color 
is more common in the south; nevertheless, northern 
climates do not exclude altogether the dark nor southern 
climates the light color. Very often, tribes which are 
closely akin possess differently-colored hair. 

259- The Hair of Negroes.— Besides, the hair of 
negroes differs from fair hair only in appearance. Ex- 
25 



386 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

amined under the microscope, true wool looks like a 
cylinder formed of imbricated scales, while the frizzled 
hair of the black presents the structure of the pileous 
form. Dr. Prichard, who made minute studies on this 

question, writes: 

"To me it is clear that the negro has hair, properly 
speaking, and not wool. The chief difference between 
the hair of the negro and that of the European consists 
in this: the one is more frizzy and crisp than the 
other, and this is really only a difference of more 
or less, because in some Europeans the hair is also 
extremely crisp. Another difference . . . consists in 
the greater quantity of the coloring substance or pig- 
ment which the hair of the negro contains. ... Be- 
sides, it is well to remark that even if the growth 
which covers the head of the negro showed under 
the microscope a structure different from that of hair 
and quite like to wool, this would not prove that the 
negro is not descended from stock the same as the white 
man, because we know that among some animal species 
there are races which have wool, while other races are 
covered with true hair." ' 

260. (3) The Form of the Skull.— Of the dif- 
ferent forms of the skull, Aeby says: "The fact that 
there is no interruption in the series of normal forms, 
because the extremes are connected by countless inter- 
mediate forms, and, furthermore, the fact that each nor- 
mal form is the imaginary centre of a series of individual 
organisms, are of great importance. This continuity in 
the forms of the skull is the more remarkable, because it 
is in harmony with all the other features in man. If we 
break the organic connection of the extremes, they are 
no doubt sharply separated; and if any one, as is often 
»Cf. Prichard's "Natural History of Mankind," the French 
translation by Roulin, Paris, 1843, vol. i., pp. 140, 141. 



THE CUSTOM OF TYING UP THE SKULL. 387 

the case, contrasts the negro and the European, it is 
easy to make splendid school pictures in most vivid 
colors of the different races of mankind. But they are 
school pictures, and their outlines are remorselessly 
obliterated by the reality." ' 

261. The Form of the Skull is Not a Specific 
Character.— Indeed, the forms of the skull can no 
more justify us in drawing the conclusion that men are 
of different species than the color of the skin or the 
character of the hair. They form no specific character, 
properly speaking. Even Haeckel acknowledges that 
the different forms of the skull are not sufficient to 
establish a basis for the classification of the human spe- 
cies. If we group the races of mankind according to 
the shape of the skull, we must except the pathological 
abnormities which occur in whole races, produced not 
naturally, but artificially. In many races, for instance, 
the custom prevails of pressing or binding up the skull 
directly after the birth of the child, so as to give it a 
shape approaching the ideal of beauty prevailing in those 
tribes; some try to flatten the skull as much as pos- 
sible, others to make it as high as possible. These 
practices exist to-day among the American Indians, but 
they also occur in other countries, and were found 
in ancient times, as Greek and Latin writers tell us. 
Professor Retzius proved that these customs still exist in 
the south of France and in parts of Turkey. Not long 
since a French physician surprised the world by show- 
ing that in Normandy children's heads are pressed into 
a sugar-loaf shape by bandages and a tight cap, while in 
Brittany the head is rounded by similar means. No 
doubt this is done to-day. 

262. The Custom of Tying up the Skull.— Here, 
then, is an unnatural practice, which has existed from 

1 " Die Schadelformen," p. 57. 



388 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

high antiquity over vast regions of country, on both 
sides of the Atlantic, and which is perpetuated unto 
this day in races as widely separated as the Turks, the 
French, and the Flathead Indians. May not some sim- 
ilar custom explain both the peculiar fossil skulls that 
have been found and the various cranial forms that are 
met with to-day among the races of mankind? Savants 
are still discussing the question whether such artificial 
formations of the skull, if produced throughout a series 
of generations, may not become hereditary. 1 During 
the last ten years much time and labor have been spent 
in studying and measuring minutely cranial forms, 
without obtaining results worthy of notice. In fact, 
within the limits of the same race — in the Mediterranean, 
for instance — the forms of the skull may vary extremely. 2 

263. No Part of the Body More Subject to 
Change than the Skull. — No part of the human 
body is subject to greater change in its form than the 
skull. The reason is that it is composed of so many 
flat bones. Only an insignificant accident is needed to 
alter the form of a bone or to change its situation, and 
the resulting form will be quite different. If we bear 
in mind the strong natural tendency to reproduce 
forms, we can easily understand how certain types 
may spread by degrees in some races. 3 

264. The Influence of the Mode of Life on 
the Skull.— Besides, it is certain that the habits, the 
passions, the mode of life, exercise a considerable influ- 
ence on the physical constitution of man, and especially 
on the form of the skull and on the features. The pri- 

1 Burmeister, " Geschichte der Schopfung," p. 54; " Archiv fur 
Anthropologic," vol. ii._, p. 21. 

2 Haeckel, " Geschichte der Schopfung," p. 596. 

3 Prichard, " Histoire Naturelle," 3d ed., vol. i., pp. 222, 426, 

444- 



INFLUENCE OF MODE OF LIFE ON THE SKULL. 389 

vations of the people of Connemara, Ireland, in the year 
preceding the famine of 184;, led to a change in their 
whole physical appearance: the jaws became prominent, 
as in the negro, and the whole form was affected! 
Prichard quotes the following striking example. 
^ "Two hundred years ago a great multitude of the na- 
tive Irish were driven from the counties of Antrim and 
Down to the sea-coast, where they have lived ever since 
in unusually miserable circumstances. The consequence 
has been that they are still distinguished by very de- 
graded features, being remarkable for open, projecting 
mouths, with prominent teeth and exposed gums ; their 
projecting cheek-bones and depressed noses are suggest- 
ive of barbarism. They are five feet two inches in 
height on an average, pot-bellied, long-legged, and abor- 
tively featured. Low stature and abnormal thinness 
of limbs is everywhere the outAvard sign of low and 
barbarous conditions of life. This is seen especially in 
the Bushmen and in the aborigines of Tierra del Fuego 
and Australia." 

Baer found in the Tartar races evident signs of the 
influence of the mode of life, and especially of the food, 
on the skulls and shape of the face. He says : 

"The Tartars of Kasan have by no means broad faces 
and high cheek-bones ; their faces are narrow, sometimes 
long, with large, projecting, and often hooked noses. 
Their skulls are of the medium form, in which no 
dimension preponderates over the others. I found 
that the Tartars on the Kur River were still handsomer, 
for they were without a certain vulgarity which I ob- 
served in the Volga Tartars. Why is it that other 
Tartars who live in the Volga-Ural steppes, not far from 
the Kasan Tartars, and who speak the same language, 
have broad faces and less projecting noses, and alto- 
gether a much ruder appearance? Like Prichard, I find 



390 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

the cause in their different mode of life ; for I would 
especially emphasize the fact that this is no case of 
different peoples classed under one name by the ethnol- 
ogist, but one people which looks on itself as one. The 
Tartars of Kasan and of the Kur, like their neighbors 
in the Trans- Caucasian provinces, are old inhabitants, 
live in regular houses, which, among the Kasan Tartars 
at any rate, are kept clean, and are engaged in agriculture 
and gardening, besides the cattle trade ; the cereals, espe- 
cially wheat and rice, form a considerable portion of their 
food. The Tartars of the steppes are nomads ; they have, 
therefore, movable kibitkas, live only on animal food, 
and their confined dwellings give little opportunity for 
cleanliness. If we go further east and examine tribes 
who speak a language belonging to the Turkish Tartar 
family, although some of them go by different names, 
we find that the face grows broader and the cheek-bones 
more prominent. The prominence of the cheek-bones, 
which is usually found with breadth of skull, reminds us 
that carnivorous animals are distinguished from grami- 
nivorous animals by prominent cheek-bones, and suggests 
the same explanation for men with high cheek-bones, for 
I find that in all the tribes which live solely on animal 
food the cheek-bones are more prominent than in those 
which, like the Hindoos and the Indo-Germanic peoples, 
eat a great deal of vegetable food." 1 

265. Was the Type of the First Generations 
More Variable? — We do not mean to say that dif- 
ferences in races of men may be explained solely by 
the influence of climate, mode of life, and other out- 
ward conditions, but they show that these influences 
may produce great changes in mankind. And even if 
the races of mankind were now fixed, so that these in- 
fluences would not produce this effect, as they must 

1 Baer, " BericM," vol. ii., p. 229. 



TYPE OF THE FIRST GENERATIONS. 39 1 

have done if they gave rise to the different races of 
mankind, the action still continues in several races 
of animals. It is possible that ages ago variations 
of species were developed, reproduced, and then re- 
mained fixed; that in early times such differentiation 
took place, and stopped when it had attained its natural 
limits. 1 

Cardinal Wiseman says : " In the child the circulation 
of the blood, the absorbing and digestive operations, all 
the functions of life, are the same as in man, with 
variations only in the degree of activity; they com- 
mence with being, and are regular through its duration. 
But in earlier stages there is besides a plastic virtue at 
work within us, traceable to no law of necessity, having 
no clear dependence on the general course of the 
ordinary vital powers, which gives growth and solidity 
to the limbs, characteristic shape to the features, gradual 
development and strength to the muscles, then to all 
appearance sinks into inertness and ceases to act, till 
age seems once more to call the extraordinary laws into 
activity, to efface the impression, and undo the work of 
their earlier operations. And, in like manner, we must 
allow that in the world's infancy, besides the regular 
ordinances of constant and daily course, causes necessary 
to produce great and permanent effects may have had a 
power now no longer wanted, consequently no longer 
exercised; that there was a tendency to stamp more 
marked features on the earth and its inhabitants, to pro- 
duce countries as well as their vegetation, races as much 
as individuals." 2 

Baer also says : " It seems to me that we may justly 
assume that in the first series of generations the type was 

1 Reusch, " Bibel und Natur," p. 491. 

2 Wiseman, " On the Connection between Science and Re- 
vealed Religion," etc., p. 138. 



392 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

more variable, and therefore could be more powerfully 
affected by the influence of nature." ' 

266. Intellectual and Moral Influences Af- 
fecting the Human Races. — But climate, food, mode 
of life, etc., are not the only causes that lead to the 
formation of races; in man quite different and mightier 
influences are active — namely, his intellectual, moral, 
and religious life. A highly-developed intellectual life 
must exercise great influence on the brain, the most 
important organ of the thinking faculty ; with the devel- 
opment of the brain, and, therefore, of the whole nervous 
system, a modification of the entire organism takes place, 
both in an ascending and a descending progression. 
The more the projecting chin recedes, the more prom- 
inent the forehead becomes ; the cheek-bones no longer 
protrude when the frontal lobes of the brain extend over 
the forehead ; the size of the mouth decreases as nobler 
instincts predominate. 2 

According to Frere, the skull of man grows until his 
fiftieth year, and does this according to the measure of 
the brain's development, because the membranes which 
unite the septa are elastic. The arch of the forehead 
with increasing education converges so as to flatten the 
occiput. In the formation of the civilized nations of 
history, sexual crossing and the exchange of ideas have 
always worked together. Marcel de Serres shows that 
the hair also changes in consequence of the activity of 
the brain. 3 

On the other hand, the body degenerates with the 
intellect. The Portuguese who live in the tropical part 
of Africa have not wholly resisted the influence of cli- 
mate, but in the main they have preserved their Euro- 

1 Cf. " Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie," vol. vi., p. 710. 

2 Hettinger, " Apologie," 6th ed., vol. ii.,i, p. 254. 

3 Marcel de Serres, " Die Mosaische Cosmogonie," etc., p. 262. 



TALENT AND THE SIZE OF THE SKULL. 393 

pean culture. Hence they have not the African form of 
skull ; nor has their color become black, like that of the 
Africans. The North American slaves have met with a 
different fate. 1 Retzius has conclusively proved the 
effect of habit on the formation of the skull and bones. 2 
The American Stephens, no friend of the negro, found 
Russian soldiers more degraded than the negroes in the 
Turkish army. 3 What oppression accomplished in this 
case is effected elsewhere by isolation. The white 
man would turn savage in the country of the negroes, 
were he cut off from all communication with his own 
race. The most striking proofs are not wanting. Let 
us recall the example of the Irish of the counties of 
Antrim and Down, related by Prichard. Some years 
ago the Ausland told of European savages on the Fiji 
Islands; M. Mundy found some in New Zealand. 4 

267. Can Talent be Measured by the Size of 
the Skull?— The measurements of skulls by Parchappe, 
R. Wagner, Lawrence, Tiedemann, Huschkle, and 
others, although differing in their results, in every case 
prove that intelligence does not correspond with cranial 
capacity. Thering says 5 that the influence of the form 
of the skull has been over-estimated. Lyell also has 
shown that the skull and the whole body of negroes, 
when associating with white men, resemble those of 
the whites more and more every generation ; and Ameri- 
can educators confirm this fact from numerous ex- 
amples in their own country. Anthropology and eth- 
nology furnish many instances from every part of the 
1 Quatrefages, " Histoire de l'Homme," p. 962 sq. 
2 Muller's " Archiv fur Anatomie," 1885. For examples of 
improvement and degeneration, see Bastian, " Das Bestandige 
m den Menschenrassen," etc., Berlin, 1873, p. 24 sq. 
'Incidents of Travel in Greece," etc., 1842. 

4 " Our Antipodes," 1852, vol. ii., p. 124. 

5 " Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie," 1873, 3- Heft 



394 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

world, of improvement in the form of the skull and the 
features of the countenance, due to education. On the 
contrary, Perty reports that even to-day in Hungary 
we may meet with the frightful ugliness which charac- 
terized the Huns. 

268. (4) The Volume of the Brain.— The form of 
the skull, therefore, is not a specific character, nor can 
this be said of its cranial capacity or volume. We cer- 
tainly find a very appreciable difference in this respect be- 
tween the negro and the white man. But here, as in all 
the phenomena we have already examined, we meet all 
the intermediate steps in the other races. We cannot, 
therefore, decide that one race ends at the point at which 
another race begins. On the other hand, between the 
highest monkey and the most degraded man there is a 
difference which cannot be bridged over. 

269. Man's Intelligence Cannot be Measured by 
the Weight of His Brain.— Besides, it is certain 
that neither man's moral worth nor his intelligence can 
be measured by the weight of his brain; therefore no 
conclusion can be drawn therefrom in regard to differ- 
ence of species. The weight may be greater or smaller 
in consequence of disease, such as hydrocephaly or 
microcephaly. Vogt himself says of microcephaly : 

" Microcephaly is a cessation of the development of 
the brain ; for the more we study the brains of micro- 
cephali, the more certain it is that in all microcephalous 
persons the insula is open for a part of its lower surface, 
which is the normal condition of the human embryo at 
the age of about three months. This state has become 
permanent in the microcephalics; an essential part of 
the brain has ceased to develop." ' 

270. Weight of the Brain.— In hydrocephaly the 
size of the brain is abnormal; but even in its normal 
1 Vogt, " Ursprtmg des Menschen." 



WEIGHT OF THE BRAIN. 395 

state the brain is not a correct measure of intelligence. 
The most searching investigations have been made on 
the brains of individuals differing in race, sex, and 
talent. The general result is that the brain of the 
better educated does not differ from that of the unedu- 
cated by greater weight, but by more numerous and 
more minute windings and deeper furrows. According 
to Wagner, the average weight in the white race is, for 
men, 1,410 gr. ; for women, 1,262 ; according to Huschkle, 
1,424 and 1,272 gr. 1 It is said that the brain of Cromwell 
weighed 2,231 gr. ; of Turgenieff, the poet and novel- 
ist, 2,020 gr. ; of the giant Joachim, 1,935 gr. (his skull 
measured 1,950 cubic centimetres) ; of Cuvier, 1,830 gr. ; 
of Byron, 1,807 gr.; of Schiller 1,785 gr. ; of Agassiz, 
1,512 gr. ; of Gauss the mathematician, 1,492 gr. ; of 
Dupuytren the surgeon, 1,436 gr.; of Broca the anato- 
mist, 1,400 gr.; of Hermann the philologist, 1,358 gr.; 
that of Gambetta weighed only 1,165 gr. Certainly 
exceptions to the supposed rule that the brain is the 
measure of intelligence are not- rare, and are the more 
intelligible because the investigators made success in 
life the chief, if not the exclusive, test of a man's intel- 
lectual work. 

And this is hardly correct ; the laborer, who has to 
wrestle against much greater obstacles than the man 
who was born amid wealth and prosperity, has often 
to use greater intellectual effort than the scholar. The 
brain of the Swiss lake-dwellers was larger than that of 
the modern Swiss. The brains of the Auvergnat and 
of the Breton, on the average, surpass the brain of 
the Parisian. 

Certain dark tribes show a simpler superficial brain 
formation than cultured nations. Immediately it is in- 

1 Nadaillac, " Les Premiers Hommes," Paris, Masson, 1881, 
vol. ii.. Append., p. 507. 



396 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

ferred that the same is true of other peoples living in a 
state of nature. But this inference is not warranted. 
Among us there are men whose brain surface surpasses 
in simplicity of texture that of people living in a state 
of nature. 1 Kollmann examined the brains of Fuegians 
to discover whether their windings differed essentially 
from those of the European brain. After having hard- 
ened them in a solution of chlorine and alcohol and 
removed the pia mater 2 the weight of the brain was 

in man 1,165 gr. = ioo per cent. 

in woman 1,015 gr.=87 

He could not weigh these brains while fresh ; he suc- 
ceeded, however, in weighing immediately after death 
the brain of a Fuegean named Enrico. Together with 
the pia mater it weighed 1,403 gr. The capacity of the 
skull was determined with sand, millet-seed, and peas; 
the measurement with peas was found the most relia- 
ble. The result in the case of five persons examined 
was as follows: 

Capitano 1,710 ccm. = 100 per cent. 

Enrico 1,470 " = 86 

Grete 1,400 " =82 

Wife of Capitano .. . 1,370 " =80 

Liese 1,320 " =70 

The average is 1,454; in the men 1,590 ccm., in the 
women 1,363 ccm. In Enrico, the capacity of the skull 
being 1,470 ccm., the weight of the fresh brain together 
with the pia was 1,403 gr. The capacity of the skull of 

1 Seitz, " Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie," 18, p. 284. 

2 The delicate fibrous and vascular membrane which invests 
the brain and spinal cord. It is the third or inmost of the three 
meninges, covered both by the arachnoid and by the dura mater. 
Also called pia. 



WEIGHT OF THE BRAIN. 



397 



<< 
a 
u 



I cm. corresponds to 0.954 gr. of brain. From this 
we can calculate the fresh brain about as follows : 

Capitano 1 ,63 1 gr. = 100 per cent. 

Enrico 1,402 gr.=86 

Grete 1,336 gr. = 82 

Wife of Capitano . . . 1,307 gr. = 80 

Lies e • 1,259 g?- = 77 

The mean is 1,387 gr. ; in the men, 1,516 gr. ; in the 
women, 1,301 gr. After a description of the furrows 
and windings of the several brains, Seitz asks : " Where 
are the signs of inferior formation in the brains of these 
Fuegeans?" As far as he is able to judge, there is no 
proof of the kind. The weight is average; the measure 
is average. 1 

Hence we cannot draw any certain conclusion from 
the weight of the brain. However, it is true, as a rule, 
that the more intelligent a man is, the more developed 
is his brain. In men whose brain weighs less than 1,000 
gr. the intelligence is generally weak ; beloAv 900 idiocy 
is complete. 2 How can we explain this difference in 
the races? By their intellectual work; at least in great 
part. Intelligence in the higher races has accumulated 
for centuries; it has developed their cranial capacity, 
and heredity has transmitted to the children the prog- 
ress made by their fathers. It is in this sense that the 
words of Goethe must be understood: 

" Es ist der Geist der sick den Korper baut." 
" The spirit 'tis that its own body builds." 
We do not yet know the mysterious ties which Provi- 
dence has established between intelligence on the one 
hand and the volume and circumvolutions of the brain 
on the other; but we do know' that the volume of the 

1 Cf. " Jahrbuchder Naturwissenschaften," 1887-1888, p. 361. 

2 Hamard, in " Le Controverse," Jan., 1886, p. 152. 



398 unity of the human species. 

brain in man is not a specific character. M. Le Bon 
weighed one hundred brains from individuals dissected 
by Broca. His experiment showed how greatly cranial 
volumes differ in the same nation, for in Paris the 
weight of the brain varies from 900 and 1,000 grammes 
to 1,600 and 1,700 grammes. 1 

271. Influence of Size on the Brain.— What in- 
fluence has the stature on the brain? The differences 
of stature in races amount to very little when compared 
with the craniological differences we have studied. 
Undoubtedly, if we take the average height, there is a 
difference of stature in races. But everybody knows 
that this character is of little importance, because 
everywhere we meet dwarfs and giants alongside of men 
of intermediate sizes. Le Bon has shown that stature 
exercises very little influence on the weight of the 
brain. 2 M. Topinard acknowledges that "the stature 
varies, like other dimensions of the human body, with 
age, sex, individual, environment, state, of health, 
and race . . . Environment has a certain influence 
on the stature of the individual." 3 The French, for 
instance, have diminished in stature on the islands 
of Mexico; the English, on the contrary, increased 
in size in Kentucky and in the west of the United 

States. 4 

The osseous structure of the different races of men, 
as the comparative study of their skeletons shows, va- 
ries to some extent; but no race is in all respects 
superior to all others, and none in all respects inferior. 
In the length of the lower extremities as compared with 

» Ch. Letourneau, " Bulletins de la Societe d' Anthropologic" 

1879, vol. ii., p. 3 8 °- 

2 Ibid., p. 3 82 - 

3 " Anthropologic," p. 3 26 - 

« Quatref ages, " Histoire Generale des Races Humaines, p. 2 1 1 . 



INFLUENCE OF SIZE ON THE BRAIN. 399 

the upper, and of the thigh as compared with the 
upper part of the arm, the Europeans are nearer to 
the apes than the negroes. The Australians have cer- 
tain peculiarities which place them in marked contrast 
to the monkey. These peculiarities are wanting alto- 
gether in the white and yellow races. 1 

We will not dwell on some unimportant peculiarities 
of an anatomical character, like the number of vertebrae, 
which are not essential characters of the species. Some 
families, for instance, have one more than the normal 
number of vertebras. Vrolick mentions a family in 
Holland which has this peculiarity. Consequently we 
find nothing in the physical constitution of man which 
proves that the varieties of mankind have a right to be 
called species. 

1 Table of the Mean Stature in Different Races. 

Patagonians 1 m. 78 Roumanians 1 m. 65 

Polynesians >. . 1 " y6 Magyars 1 

Iroquois 1 " 73 Sicilians 1 

Guineans 1 " 72 Finlanders 1 

Caff res 1 " 71 Malays 1 

Scandinavians 1 " 71 Lapps 1 

Scotch 1 " 71 Papuans. 1 

Danes 1 " 68 Vedans 1 

Arabs. 1 " 67 Bushmen 1 

New Caledonians 1 " 67 Negrilles of Africa 1 

Cf. "Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften," 1888, p. 363. As re- 
gards the height of young men, the physical examination of 
recruits for the French army, according to the " Vossische 
Zeitung, "1888, has established some surprising results. Villerme 
had already shown that, as a rule, well-to-do Parisians were taller 
than those of the poorer classes. Now Dr. Manouvrier proves 
that this was also the case in 188 1 and 1882. In twenty districts 
(Belleville) where the very poor live, the average was the lowest ; 
in eight districts, comprising the Quartier des Champs Elysees, 
where the well-to-do live, the average was the highest. In the 
other districts it varies according to the circumstances of the 
people. Dr. Robert has proved the same fact for London. 



63 
61 

61 

59 

53 

53 

53 
40 

35 



400 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

272. (5) Differences in Language. — Nor can lan- 
guage be used as an argument against the unity of 
species in mankind. The hundreds of languages 
which are known to exist at present are not so many 
independent systems, different in their origin, but 
simply varieties of higher units, the language groups; 
these, again, are differentiations of a small number of 
principal languages, which are called root languages. 
It is admitted that tribes that speak languages belonging 
to one root were originally one people, and that the 
growth of subordinate forms of language (families, 
tongues, dialects, etc.) was the result of the gradual 
division of this people. As philology has hitherto 
increased the extent but diminished the number of 
the co-ordinate groups, we are justified in expecting 
that further investigation will prove even the root 
languages, which at present seem to be disconnected, 
to be historical branches of one siimmiim genus of lan- 
guage. 

273. Difference of Language is no Argument 
against Monogenism. — Ethnology, says Pott, 1 a dis- 
ciple of Hegel, does not contradict the origin of 
all men from one pair. What appears especially re- 
markable is, that peculiarities of race and language 
do not at all coincide. Therefore, when Vogt 2 asserts 
that the great divisions based on the physical confor- 
mation of the races in general run parallel to the divis- 
ions based on language, in other words, that there are as 
many primitive language-groups as there are human 
races, he only proves his recklessness. Pott finds this 
entirely baseless assertion the more striking because 
ethnologists are "unable to tell us how many primi- 
tive races there are." 

3 Pott, " Die Ung-leichheit der Menschenracen," p. 272. 
2 Vogt, " Kohlerglaube und Wissenschaft," p. 56. 



LANGUAGE AMONG SAVAGES. 4 OI 

274. Classification of Languages.— From the 
morphological point of view, we divide languages into 
radical languages (like the Chinese) , agglutinative (like 
the Turanian), and inflectional or organic (like the 
Aryan) . Now, there are races which embrace nations 
belonging to different linguistic families and tribes 
for instance, the Caucasian, which includes peoples 
speaking the Indo-Germanic as well as those speak- 
ing Semitic languages; again, the same linguistic family 
embraces nations belonging to different races: the 
Turanian family of languages, for instance, includes all 
the languages of Europe and Asia, with the exception 
of the Aryan, Semitic, and Chinese languages ; therefore 
it comprises the languages of the Hungarians, Turks 
Mongolians, Jakutes, Esquimaux, Mandchus, Tartars' 
down to the dialects of the Malays, Siamese, and Poly- 
nesians.' The most marked physiological and cra- 
moscopical contrasts are found in peoples speaking 
languages belonging to the same family; the New 
Zealander linguistically belongs to the same family as 
the Dravidians of Farther India ; the interior African 
tribes speak languages related to those of the Berbers 
in North Africa. 2 This is the reason, says Max Midler 
why every attempt to classify the nations according to 
the races and languages must prove abortive. 

275. Languages are very Numerous among Sav 
AGES.-Hence the hypothesis of the autochthonists is 
from the linguistic point of view, altogether untenable! 
For historical facts and experience prove that the divis- 
ion of languages is largely the result of intellectual 
degeneration. Languages among savage races are ex- 
tremely numerous; in cultured nations a language 
extends in area with the increase of education. Among 
1 Max Miiller, " Wissenschaft der Sprache," p 24, 
\ Quatrefages, « L'Unite de UEspece Humaine," p 6< 



4 02 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

the barbarous and scattered population of the island of 
Timor no less than forty languages are spoken, and 
among the cannibals some hundreds. 1 So also the lan- 
guage of Friesland is split up into numberless dialects. 2 
Pliny 3 speaks of three hundred languages in Colchis; 
and the missionary Gabriel Sagard 4 relates that among 
the Hurons there is not one village which speaks the 
same language as its neighbor; even families, he says, 
have marked peculiarities in their language. Moreover, 
among savages language changes very fast ; sometimes 
a language changes altogether after one generation. 5 
276. Cause of the Multiplication of Languages. 

If it be permitted to draw a conclusion from these 

facts, we find the cause of the multiplication of languages 
in the confusion of religious and social relations ; and in 
this regard, too, the Biblical narrative is confirmed, 
which declares that when men became confused and 
divided in their knowledge of God, their language was di- 
vided and nations were formed. 6 " The unity of man- 
kind which preceded the separation," says Schelling, 
"and which we cannot imagine without a cause, could 
not be as well preserved by anything as by belief in 
one God. Hence, a spiritual crisis in man's heart must 
have preceded the separation of the nations, for this 
separation necessarily brought on a division of the lan- 
guage." 7 The confusion of languages is only a conse- 
quence of the confusion of thought, says Hettinger, a 
confusion of man in the depths of his being, in his con- 

1 Crawford, " History of the Archipel." vol. ii., p. 79- 

2 J. G. Kolb, " Die Menschen und Inseln der Herzogthumer 
Schleswig und Holstein," vol. ii., p. 62. 

3 Plinius, " Historia Naturalis," vi., 5. 

4 G. Sagard, " Grand-voyage au Pays des Hurons," 1631. 

5 Max Miiller, op. cit. , p. 49- 

6 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. ii., 1, p 263. 

7 Schelling, " Philosophie der Mythologie," Einleitung, p. 62. 



RELATION OF THE FAMILIES OF LANGUAGES. 403 

sciousness of God. Therefore the multiplication of 
languages is a problem which cannot be explained 
by the wanderings of the nations, even when we add, 
as causes, climate, country, mode of life, habits, etc. 
Often nations living close together and descended 
from the same stock nevertheless speak different lan- 
guages. Something must have taken place to separate 
them; philosophical speculations are here insufficient. 1 

277. The Relation of the Various Families of 
Languages.— The relation of the various families of 
languages to each other is briefly set forth by A. von 
Humboldt as follows : " Though languages may at first 
sight appear very different, though their notions, hu- 
mors, peculiarities, may seem very singular, nevertheless 
they betray a certain analogy, and we shall understand 
their numerous relations better according as the phil- 
osophical history of nations and the study of language 
become more perfect." 2 Pott speaks in the same 
terms. 3 

The last fifteen years have proved the correctness of 
this view to a great extent. The Mosaic account repre- 
sents nations as related whose relationship antiquity 
was unable to recognize. The Romans and Greeks, 
in spite of their culture, never dreamed that they 
were nearer related to the Aryans and Germans than 
to the Syrians and Tyrians. What Holy Writ had 
stated the science of the nineteenth century has con- 
firmed: Ionians, Aryans, and Germans are of common 
origin. 4 The study of language has proved that before 
the ancestors of the Hindoos and Persians emigrated 

1 Hettinger, op. at, p. 264. 

2 Klaproth, "Asia Polyglotta," p. 6. 

3 ' Allgemeine Literarische Zeitung," 1839, Nr. 62. Cf. Bunsen, 
'Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History," vol. i., p. 413.' 

4 Cf. the testimonies of Ewald, Fiirst, and Wiillner. 



404 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

toward the south, and before the Greek, Roman, 
Celtic, Teutonic, and Slav colonies went to Europe, 
there was probably on the plains of Asia a tribe of Ary- 
ans who spoke a language which was not Sanscrit, nor. 
Greek, nor German, but which called the Giver of light 
and life by the same name which to-day may be heard in 
the temples of Benares, in the basilicas of Rome, and in 
the cathedrals and churches of northern Germany. 1 All 
the Indo-Germanic languages, says Pott, were identical 
before their separation ; they existed in the germ in one 
original language, which disappeared when they were 
differentiated from it. 2 

Max Miiller and Hitzig 3 some time ago attempted 
to prove that, both in their material and their formal 
elements, the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan families of 
language are related to one another. 

A. Balbi, in his " Ethnographic Atlas " of 1826, counted 
150 languages in Asia. Klaproth reduced this number 
to 23. Max Miiller reduced the latter to four original 
languages, to which the 53 languages of Europe which 
Balbi gives are subordinate; the same is true of the 
Australian languages, of which Balbi counts 117. 4 "The 
same author counted 423 languages in America, but 
they were related to one another and to the Turanian 
languages, as is becoming clearer every day that in- 
quiry progresses. 5 "The historical comparative science 
of language," says Steinthal, "seems to find more and 

1 Cf. Max Miiller, " Wissenschaft der Sprache," p. 177. 

2 Cf. Pott, " Etymologische Forschungen," 1833, vol. i., p. 28. 

3 Philologen-Versammlung zu Heidelberg, 1865. 

4 Cf. F. Bopp," Ueber die Verwandtschaft der Malaisch-Polynes- 
ischen Sprachen mit den Indo-Europaeischen," " Abhandlung der 
Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische Klasse," 
1840, p. 171. 

5 Prichard, " Histoire de l'Homme,"p. 353; Prescott's" Mexico," 
vol. ii., p. 448. 



MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE DIVISION OF LANGUAGES. 405 

more proof that all related languages have arisen from 
one single historic mother-tongue." 2 

278. The Mosaic Account of the Division of 
Languages Confirmed.— Let us repeat: the Mosaic 
account, which tells us that the division of languages 
took place a long time after the Creation and brings 
this division into immediate connection with the divi- 
sion of mankind into different nations at the building 
of the tower of Babel, appears to be confirmed by the 
results of the science of language. 

"But," says Hettinger, "even supposing that it could 
be proved that languages had not a common origin, it 
would not necessarily follow that we must assume 
different beginnings for the various races of men ; for if 
language is natural to man, then, at various times and in 
different countries, languages may have developed among 
the descendants of one family and spread over other coun- 
tries; but if language is an artificial invention, then it is 
hard to see why every succeeding generation should not 
have invented its own language." 2 

In conclusion, we hold that philology can neither 
prove that the different languages now met with have 
not their origin in a common mother-tongue, nor that 
the differentiation of languages did not take place in the 
manner described by the Bible in the wonderful narra- 
tive of the confusion of languages at the building of 
the tower of Babel. 

Polygenists, when arguing against the descent of 
mankind from a single pair, bring forward not only the 
marked differences in the races of men, but also the 
rapid increase of mankind and the origin of certain 
tribes, especially the Polynesians and Americans. Let 
us inquire into the value of these arguments. 

1 Steinthal, " Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache," etc. 

2 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. ii., 1., p. 269. 



406 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

279. (6) The Rapid Increase of Mankind. — "Who- 
ever believes in the Bible," says Vogt, "must believe in 
the whole Bible. Whoever believes Adam to be the one 
father of the human race must admit the same of 
Noe, who, with his three sons, alone remained on the 
earth after the Deluge. But how wonderfully fecund 
must not the families of Sem, Cham, and Japheth have 
been to produce, in. 500 years at the most, millions of 
descendants in Egypt alone, while the monuments of 
Khorsabad, Nineve, etc., also bear witness to the exist- 
ence of very large nations, which peopled Asia a few 
centuries after the Flood. Even mice and rabbits must 
despair of a similar increase in so short a time. How 
could men increase so fast and reach distant islands? 
Furthermore, why did they not remain together on the 
luxuriant plains of the tropics, but emigrate to cold and 
dreary countries?" 

"What a wonderful, what a curious disposition of 
fate," says Burmeister, 1 " to allow the earth to be peopled 
in the space of 4,000 years with 1,000 millions of men 
from one single point and one single pair!" 

280. The Rapid Increase of Mankind no Argu- 
ment against the Unity of Our Species. — These 
objections can hardly be meant in earnest. We shall not 
refer again to the defective character of Biblical chro- 
nology. It is sufficient to remark that even if the time 
was as short as Vogt and Burmeister suppose, it would 
not be an argument against the descent of mankind from 
one pair. Assume that between the ages of twenty-five 
and fifty a married couple gives birth to six children 
on an average; in that case the number of men 450 
years after the Deluge might have reached 800,000,000; 
that is almost as many as are supposed to exist on the 
earth now. Mankind, it is true, does not now increase 

1 " Geschichte der Schopftmg," p. 62. 



THE RAPID INCREASE OF MANKIND. 40/ 

at such, a rate in any country; men need not have 
increased at this rate in the earliest times, but they 
probably did increase much faster than they do now. 
It may be that there is now no increase in the number 
of mankind, because the limit of the population which 
the earth can support has been reached, but that until 
this limit was reached the increase was more rapid and 
uninterrupted. 1 If we suppose that a yearly increase 
of only 2^ per cent, took place, and a similar increase 
takes place even now under favorable conditions in 
thinly-populated countries, 500 years after the Deluge 
106,000,000 people might have existed; and if an in- 
crease of 3^ per cent, took place, 180,000,000 might 
have existed. We find instances of such increase in 
modern times. In the year 1780 the population of 
Java was 2,029,915 ; in 1824, 6,368,090; in 1838 it was 
8,103,080. Thus the number of inhabitants had quad- 
rupled in not quite two generations. It is asserted that 
from 1785 to 1788 the population of Ireland increased 
from 2,845,932 to 4,640,000, which would correspond to 
a yearly increase of 17% per cent. 2 At the end of the 
last century a few English sailors and a few natives of 
Tahiti settled on an island of the Pacific Ocean. In 
the year 1800 there were nineteen children, one man 
and some women; in 1855, although several had died 
unexpectedly, there were 187 persons ; this is an increase 
of more than 3^ per cent. 3 It is said that on an island 
which was first settled by some shipwrecked Englishmen 
in 1589, and was visited in 1667 by a Dutch ship, a popu- 
lation of 12,000 souls was found — all the descendants 
of four mothers. Similar examples are mentioned by 

1 A. Wagner, " Geschichte der Urwelt," vol. ii., p. 278. Cf. 
Reusch, " Bibel tmd Natur," p. 432. 

2 Carey, " Socialwissenschaft," vol. iii. , p. 368. 

3 " Natur tmd Offenbarung," vol. iii., p. 69. 



408 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Wiseman. 1 " In Europe," says Burdack, "four children 
on an average at present spring from one married couple. 
If only a single pair was created, which is very conceiv- 
able, and it propagated itself at this rate, then, after a 
thousand years, we should have a population twice as 
great as there is now upon earth." 

Still more striking facts are found in the animal 
kingdom. Acosta, in describing the natural history of 
New Spain, one hundred years after its discovery, says 
that even before his time it was not uncommon for people 
to possess from 70,000 to 100,000 sheep; and yet before 
it was discovered by the Spaniards there were no sheep 
in New Spain, and all the sheep were descended from 
those which had been brought by the Spaniards. It is 
also well known that horses and cattle have existed in 
America only since its discovery by Columbus ; countless 
herds are now found, both tame and wild. Acosta 
speaks of numerous herds of wild cattle which roamed 
over the islands of Hispaniola, and which afforded sport 
to the hunter; in 1585, 35,000 were exported from this 
island, and 64,000 from New Spain. From Paraguay 
and New Spain alone 1 ,000,000 of ox-hides were exported 
every year at the end of the last century ; yet the cattle 
in these countries are the offspring of seven cows and 
one bull, which were left there in 1546. If these ani- 
mals multiplied to such an extent in a comparatively 
short space of time, in spite of the depredations of men 
and wild beasts, why should not the human race have 
multiplied in a like degree, under more favorable condi- 
tions and in a longer period? 

281. (7) Geographical Objections against Mono- 
GENISM. The primitive inhabitants of America are 

1 Wiseman, " On the Connection between Science and Revealed 
Religion," etc., p. 237; A. Wagner, " Geschichte der Urwelt," 
vol. ii., p. 280. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE POLYNESIANS. 409 

autochthonous, say the polygenists ; they were born on the 
soil where the Europeans met them when they discovered 
the country. It is the same with the Polynesians, they 
tell us. Neither the one nor the other could arrive by 
way of emigration from the ancient world ; therefore they 
not only form different races, but also different species. 
These assertions of the polygenists are far from being 
proved. On the contrary, the more the question is 
studied, the more the proofs accumulate which show the 
connection between the inhabitants of the Old and 
the New World. The origin of the American Indians, 
it is true, is yet very obscure, but we know that the New 
World could be, and in fact was, peopled by races of the 
Old World. 

282. The Origin of the Polynesians.— Many in- 
vestigations in recent years have proved that it is not 
impossible that the whole earth, including America and 
Polynesia, was peopled from one centre. Even those 
who, like Waitz and Giebel, do not actually believe that 
mankind did in reality spread from one centre, expressly 
acknowledge that this was possible. The former says: 

"Man, even in his primitive condition, had so many 
favorable opportunities of wandering from one end of 
the world to the other, that we can hardly doubt the 
possibility of his having spread over it from one centre. 

"We cannot admit that the difficulties in the way of 
migration afford a valid reason for disbelieving that 
mankind originally came from one spot on the earth. 
These difficulties are evidently nowhere greater than in 
the Pacific Ocean, or even as great; and yet the Pacific 
Ocean affords abundant proof, not only that these diffi- 
culties are not insuperable, but also that they do not 
hinder either immigration from other countries or the 
spreading of the inhabitants from one group of islands 
to another. . . . The great similarity which exists in 



4 lO UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

language, customs, tradition, and religion in Polynesia, 
from the Sandwich Islands to New Zealand, will not 
allow ns to suppose that these islanders are of different 



races." 



The Mam-myth proves just as conclusively as the 
common language that the Polynesian races were 
originally one. It is true, they are now divided, and 
marvellously scattered to far-distant islands. The Poly- 
nesians are probably the most nomadic race upon earth; 
they are the gypsies of the sea. 2 One of the most com- 
petent and learned authorities on the Polynesians is 
A. de Quatrefages, who made them his special study. 
His conclusions in regard to them are decisive; here 

they are : 

i. The Polynesians were not created on the place; 
that is, they are not indigenous nor the spontaneous 
product of the islands on which they were discovered. 
2. They are not the remains of a pre-existing population 
partly swallowed by some cataclysm. 3. Whatever may 
be the origin of the islands on which they were found, 
they arrived there by way of voluntary emigration or 
by involuntary dissemination, successively, and by pro- 
ceeding for the most part from the West to the East. 
4. They started from the archipelagoes on the eastern 
coast of Asia. 5. The parent race of the Polynesians is 
perfectly recognizable both in its physical characters and 
in its language. 6. The Polynesians settled at first in 
Samoa and Tonga; thence they passed to the archipel- 
agoes of the immense ocean open before them. 7. 
When they landed on the islands which they came to 
people, the emigrants sometimes found them entirely 
desert; sometimes they met tribes more or less black, 

1 Waitz, " Anthropologic, " vol. i., p. 225. 

2 Hochstetter, " Neuseeland," p. 56; Peschel, " Die Wanderung- 
en der Siidvolker," in " Ausland,'" 1864, p. 361. 



TRADITIONS OF CENTRAL AMERICA. 411 

evidently cast there by accident, as European travellers 
can prove. 8. Whether pure or allied to these Asiatic 
negro tribes, they have formed secondary centres 
from which new colonies started, which spread Poly- 
nesian customs more and more. 9. None of these 
migrations dates back beyond historic times. 10. 
The chief migrations took place a little before or after 
the Christian era." ' 

283. The Origin of the Americans.— There is a 
growing belief in our days that formerly a large island 
existed in the Atlantic Ocean, opposite the mouth of 
the Mediterranean Sea. This island, it is supposed, was 
the remnant of an Atlantic continent, and is spoken of 
by Plato in his Timseus; 2 the island of Atlantis, it is 
assumed, perished in a terrible convulsion of nature, 
which sunk the whole island beneath the waters of the 
ocean, with nearly all its inhabitants; a few persons 
escaped in ships or on rafts -to the American continent. 
Whatever may be the truth of this hypothesis, so much 
is certain : we have many ancient legends which mention 
a continent that may have been the cradle of some Cen- 
tral American tribes. 

284. The Traditions of Central America Point 
to an Eastern Origin.— In fact, all the traditions of 
the civilized races of Central America point to an Eastern 
origin. The leader and civilizer of the Nahua family 
was Quetzalcoatl. "From the distant East, this mys- 
terious person came to Tulan, and became the patron god 
and high priest of the ancestors of the Toltecs. ... He 
was skilled in many arts ; he invented " (that is, im- 
ported) "gem-cutting and metal-casting; he originated 
letters, and invented the Mexican calendar." 3 The 

1 Quatrefages, " Histoire Generate des Races Humaines," p. 145. 

2 See Plato's "Dialogues," ii., 517, Timaeus. Plato describes 
Atlantis quite in detail. 

3 Ign. Donnelly, " Atlantis," New York, p. 166 sq. 



4 I2 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Cakchiquel MS. says: "Four persons came from Tulan 
from the direction of the rising sun — that is one Tulan. 
There is another Tulan in Xibalbay, and another where 
the sun sets, and it is thence that we came; and in 
the direction of the setting sun there is another where is 
the god ; so that there are four Tulans ; and it is where 
the sun sets that we came to Tulan, from, the other side 
of the sea, where this Tulan is ; and it is there that we 
were conceived and begotten by our mothers and 
fathers." That is to say, the birthplace of the race 
was in the East, across the sea, at a place called Tulan ; 
and when they emigrated they called their first stopping- 
place on the American continent Tulan also ; and besides 
this .there were two other Tulans. 

Of the Nahua predecessors of the Toltecs in. Mexico, 
the Olmecs and Xicalancans were the most important. 
They were the forerunners of the great races that fol- 
lowed. According to Ixtlilxochitl, these people— which 
are conceded to be one — occupied the world in the third 
age ; they came from # the East in ships or barks to the 
land of Potonchan, which they commenced to people. 

In Yucatan traditions all point to an Eastern and 
foreign origin of the race. The early writers report 
that the natives believe their ancestors to have crossed 
the sea by a passage which was opened for them. 1 It 
was also believed that part of the population came into 
the country from the West. Lizana says that the smaller 
portion, "the little descent," came from the West. 
Cogolluda considers the Eastern colony to have been 
the larger. . . . The culture-hero, Zamma, the author of 
all civilization in Yucatan, is described as the teacher of 
letters, and the leader of the people from their ancient 
home. . . . He was the leader' of a colony from the East. 2 

1 Cf. Landa, " Relacion," p. 28. 

2 " North America of Antiquity," p. 229. 



AMERICANS AND RACES OF THE ANCIENT WORLD. 413 

Same, the most famous of the Brazilian legendary he- 
roes, came across the ocean from the rising sun. The 
Same of Brazil was probably the Zamma of Yucatan. 
The Quicheans speak of white men who came from the 
land of the sun. 1 The Peruvians attributed the origin 
of their civilization to Manco-Capac and Mama Oello, 2 
his sister and wife, who had crossed the ocean to their 
country ; the inhabitants of Bogota had preserved the 
remembrance of a white man who had taught them, the 
art of building houses and of sowing, and who afterward 
disappeared. 3 So also the Brazilians. According to the 
account of the Shawnee Indians, the ancient inhabitants 
of Florida were white men. The Natchez believed that 
they had received their worship and laws from a man 
and woman sent by the sun; that is, from the East. 4 
According to the Tuscaroras, their fathers were natives 
of the extreme North. 5 

285. History Confirms the Above Traditions. 

History confirms the above traditions. Concordant tes- 
timonies, worthy of belief, show that numerous advent- 
urers had preceded Christopher Columbus to America. 
The communication between Asia and the extreme 
north of America must always have been easy; they are 
separated only by Behring Strait. From the coast 
of Africa to that of Brazil the distance is hardly 1,500 
miles; from Ireland to Labrador the distance is not 
much greater ; Norway is separated from Greenland by 
only 780 miles. 

286. The Americans and the Races of the 
Ancient World. — The greatest difficulty is to de- 

1 Brasseur de Bourbourg, " Histoire des Nations de Yucatan," 
P- 178. ''Ibid. 

! Nadaillac, " Les Premiers Hommes," vol. ii., p. 95. 

1 Du Pratz, " History of Louisiana," London, 1763, p. 175. 

5 Nadaillac, op. cit., p. 527. 



414 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

termine the relations between the Americans and the 
races of the Old World. A migration may have 
taken place by way of Behring Strait, which, in 
the narrowest place, is only ten miles wide. Other 
tribes may have migrated by way of the Aleutian 
Islands. 1 Then, again, a series of island groups extends 
from Southern Asia toward South America. They 
succeed one another very closely for ioo degrees of 
longitude; for the remaining 50 degrees there are none. 
The resemblance among the inhabitants of these islands, 
in bodily structure, language, and habits, shows that this 
chain of islands, as far as the Sandwich Islands, was 
gradually peopled from Asia. If we assume that the gap 
which now exists was originally broken by intermediate 
islands, that the islands of this tropical chain are, as it 
were, the remaining pillars of a bridge originally 
stretching from Asia to America, it would be easy to 
understand how these tribes reached America. Again, 
the sailor who skirts the Aleutian Islands and goes from 
Kamtchatka to the peninsula of Alaska finds himself in 
the centre of a kind of archipelago, that makes it difficult 
to determine the limit of the two continents. The pas- 
sage from the one to the other is very easy. The 
Tchouktchis, natives of Asia since immemorial times, 
camped on both shores of Behring Strait, which sepa- 
rates Asia from America. Now, if they crossed this 
strait, what hindered them from spreading on the 
American continent and thus becoming the progeni- 
tors, if not of the whole population of the western 
continent, at least of a part? The communication 
between both shores has been so easy at all times that 
even to-day these same peoples visit each other very 
frequently — sometimes as friendly neighbors, some- 
times to treat on commercial affairs. In doing this, 

1 Peschel, " Volkerkunde," p. 428. 



SHIPWRECKS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES. 415 

they make use of the same primitive means of naviga- 
tion as formerly. 1 

287. Shipwrecks in Ancient and Modern Times. — 
It is possible, too, that the inhabitants of the Sandwich 
Islands, or of the eastern coast of Asia, reached America 
in boats, driven there, perhaps, by storms. In historical 
times there are numerous instances of ships thrown on 
the American continent, carrying men from different 
countries. Bancroft relates that from 1852 — that is, 
since the colonization of California by Americans — 
to 1875 twenty-eight Asiatic ships were picked up 
on its coast, of which only twelve were abandoned. 2 
If such accidents can happen in our day, they cer- 
tainly could take place in former times. Japanese 
boats are known to have been carried to the Sand- 
wich Islands, and even to the mouth of the Columbia 
river. 3 Cardinal Bembo reports 4 that a vessel with 
blue-tattooed Esquimaux was found by a Norman sailor 
in the year 1508 on the shore of the Bretagne. Out of 
seven men, only one was alive/ As late as the year 
1682 Greenlanders were driven toward the Orkneys, a 
group of islands separated from Scotland by the 
Strait of Pentland. Captain Cook found on Otaheite 
three inhabitants of Wattero, who had been carried 
away in a boat for a distance of 550 nautical miles. In 

1 Dr. C James, " Moise et Darwin," p. 230. " The whole shape 
of the Pacific Ocean, with its countless groups of islands, gives 
one the idea of a submerged continent, whose highest summits 
still reach above the surface of the sea; and judging from the fre- 
quency with which the lagoon islands occur, it seems as if the 
sea-bed was still sinking. "—Vogt " Geologic "vol. ii., p. 1005. 

' The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America," 
New York, 1875-1876, vol. v., p. 52. 

3 A. Wagner, " Geschichte der Urwelt," vol. ii., p. 233. 

4 "Historiee Venet/'vol. viii., p. i7o(Latetia, 1551). Cf. Hum- 
boldt, " Kritische Untersuchungen," vol. i., p. 471. 



416 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

1696 two boats, which had left Ancorso with thirty per- 
sons, reached Samar, one of the Philippine Islands, 
after having been driven by storm. 800 miles. In 1721 
two boats with thirty men, women, and children, went 
from the Island of Faroidex to Guajan, one of the 
Ladrones Islands, a distance of 200 miles. Kotzebue 
made the acquaintance of a certain Kadu on the Radack 
Islands who had come from the Island of Ulea, 1,500 
miles off. 1 

From these facts we can easily see that America 
may have been peopled by similar accidents ; especially 
as the cold current w T hich comes from the Arctic Ocean 
through Behring Strait carries to the coasts of the New 
World all the wrecked barges of the Pacific Ocean. 

288. Ancient Records and Legends. — In this way, 
therefore, Mongol and Malay immigrants may have 
reached America from the East; and it is not impossible 
that immigrants may have come from the West, i.e. , from 
Europe. If ancient records and legends are true, the 
Northmen were acquainted with our shores, from New- 
foundland to Florida, five centuries before Christo- 
pher Columbus made his memorable voyages. 2 While 
several nations claim to have discovered America before 
Columbus, the Norse records deserve more than a pass- 
ing notice. The voyage of Leif Erikson to "Vinland 
the Good " is recorded both in the Flatey Book and in 

: Giebel, " Tagesfragen," p. 90. For other examples, see 
Rauch, "Die Einheit," etc., p. 343. 

2 A. v. Humboldt refers to the discovery of America by the 
Northmen as " undoubted." See Kosmos, ii., p. 6003. In regard 
to these Norse discoveries, Horsford quotes from a letter 
from Nordenskjold as follows : " The Norsemen made numerous 
long voyages out from Greenland for centuries, and established 
colonies on the American continent." — " Discovery of America by 
Northmen," Boston, 1888, pp. 17-19. Cf. E. A. Allen, "His- 
tory of Civilization," vol. iv., p. 55. 



ANCIENT RECORDS AND LEGENDS. 41; 

the saga of Thorfinn Karlsefne, manuscripts dating back 
to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The date 
of the discovery is fixed by the statement that Vin- 
land was discovered by Leif the same year that Christi- 
anity was introduced into Iceland, i.e., a.d. iooo. This 
was fourteen years after Bjarne discovered Vinland. 1 

It is quite likely, therefore, that in dim antiquity 
America may have been peopled from Europe, at least 
in part. In a book called " De Mensura Terrse," written 
by Dicuil, an Irish monk, in 825, we are told that as 
early as 795, that is to say, in the time of Charlemagne, 
Irish monks had gone to Iceland in order to introduce 
Christianity among the inhabitants who had come there 
from North America, and who, at a later date, withdrew 
to America again, flying from the Northmen and leav- 
ing behind Irish books, sacred bells, and croziers. In 
861 the first Northmen were carried by storms to the 
shores of Iceland, and after Harold Harfagr's battle of 
Stafanger many migrations thither took place, so that 
toward the end of the ninth century the island was 
peopled by Norwegians and Danes, mixed with a few 
Swedes and Irishmen. Between 984-986 the west of the 
Greenland coast was peopled for the first time. In 986 
Bjarne Herjulfson, driven out of his course on his way 
from Iceland to Greenland, came to Nantucket, Nova 
Scotia, Newfoundland, and to the mouth of the Taunton. 
The Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg, in a note to his 
translation of the "Popol Vuh," says: 

"There is an abundance of legends and traditions 
concerning the voyages of the Irish to America, and 
their constant intercourse with that continent many 
centuries before the time of Columbus. We should 
bear in mind that Ireland was colonized by the Phoeni- 
cians (or by people of that race). An Irish saint named 

1 Cf. "North American Review," vol. xlvi., p. 185. 
27 



4 i 8 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

Vigilius, who lived in the eighth century, was accused 
before Pope Zachary of having taught heresies on the 
subject of the antipodes. At first he wrote to the Pope 
in reply to the charge, but afterward he went to Rome 
in person to justify himself ; and there he proved to the 
Pope that the Irish had been accustomed to communicate 
with a transatlantic world." This fact, says Baldwin, 
seems to have been preserved in the records of the 
Vatican. 

If ancient Irish records may be trusted, America was 
known and visited by Irishmen 1,000 years before 
Columbus. 

The Irish annals preserve the memory of St. Brendan 
of Clonfert and his remarkable voyage to a land in 
the West, made a.d. 545. His early youth was passed 
under the care of St. Ida, a lady of the family of the 
Desii. When he was five years old he was placed 
under the care of Bishop Ercus. Kerry was his native 
home ; the blue waves of the Atlantic washed its shores ; 
the coast was full of traditions of a wonderful land in 
the West. He went to see the venerable St. Enda, the 
first abbot of Arran, for counsel. He was probably en- 
couraged in the plan he had formed of carrying the Gos- 
pel to this distant land. He proceeded along the coast 
of Mayo, inquiring as he went for traditions of the 
Western continent. On his return to Kerry he decided 
to set out on an important expedition. St. Brendan's 
Hill still bears his name ; and from the bay at the foot 
of this lofty eminence he sailed for the "Far West." 
Directing his course toward the southwest, with a few 
faithful companions, in a well-provisioned bark, he came 
after some rough and dangerous navigation to calm seas, 
where, without aid of oar or sail, he was borne along- 
for many weeks. He had probably entered the same 
current which Columbus travelled nearly one thousand 



ANCIENT CHINESE ANNALS. 419 

years later, and which extends from the shores of Africa 
and Europe to America. He finally reached land ; he 
proceeded inland until he came to a large river flowing 
from east to west, supposed by some to be the Ohio. 
After an absence of seven years, he returned to Ireland, 
and lived not only to tell of the marvels he had seen, 
but to found a college of three thousand monks at Clon- 
fert. There are eleven Latin MSS. in the " Bibliotheque 
Nationale' at Paris giving this legend, the dates of 
which vary from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, 
but all of them anterior to the time of Columbus. 1 

289. Ancient Chinese Annals.— The most ancient 
Chinese annals make mention of a great continent sit- 
uated about 20,000 li 2 from the East. They call it 
Fou-Sang, and, according to the Sinologues, Fou- 
Sang is America. 3 Marine currents, especially the 
Kuro-Chirvo, the black current of Japan, must formerly, 
like to-day, have thrown the sailors of the Celestial 
Empire on the coasts of America. From 1872 to 1876 
forty- nine Chinese barks were carried along by the cur- 
rents toward the Pacific Ocean ; nineteen landed on the 
Aleutian Islands; ten on the shores of Alaska; three 
on those of the United States; two on the Sandwich 
Islands. 

The Chinese interpreter at San Francisco lately wrote 
an essay, in which he makes the following statements 
drawn from Chinese historians and geographers : " Four- 
teen hundred years ago America had been discovered bv 
the Chinese and described by them. They stated that 
land to be about 20,000 Chinese miles distant from 
China. About the year 500 after the birth of Christ, 
Buddhist priests repaired thither and brought back the 

1 Ign. Donnelly, "Atlantis," pp. 419, 420. 

2 One li is about 536 yards. 

3 Xadaillac, "L'Amerique Prehistorique," pp. 544-547. 



420 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

news that they had met with Buddhist idols and religious 
writings in the country." ' 

290. Ancient Records and Mythology. — When Ave 
turn to the ancient traditions, myths, and records of the 
Eastern world outside of China, we find much that points 
to an acquaintance with " Atlantis," or the "continent 
beyond the sea." Mythology refers to a great continent 
beyond the Cronian Sea, meaning the Atlantic ; and it was 
beyond the waters that the ancients placed the Elysian 
fields. Theopompus, a famous historian and orator in the 
days of Alexander the Great, in his " Thaumasia" spoke of 
a continent beyond the sea, the dimensions of which were 
greater than Asia, Europe, and Africa together, and so 
fertile that animals of prodigious size were to be seen 
there. It is reported of one Hanno, that he made a 
voyage "beyond the Pillars of Hercules " (the Straits of 
Gibraltar) and visited a strange coast, which he reached 
by sailing due west over the ocean for thirty days. 
Homer, Solon, and Horace speak of the Atlantides as 
being islands situated at a distance of 10,000 stadia west 
of Europe and Africa. 2 Aristotle speaks of an island 
beyond the Straits of Hercules in these words: "It is 
said that the Carthaginians have discovered beyond the 
Pillars of Hercules a fertile island, which is without 
inhabitants, yet full of forests and navigable rivers, and 
abounding in fruit; it is estimated to be many days' 
voyage from the mainland." Plutarch also makes men- 
tion of a mysterious stranger who came from a distant 
country to Carthage about 300 B.C., where he lived many 
years. According to Cabrera, the first Carthaginian 
emigration to this western continent took place during 
the first Punic war. According to Sandoval, a succes- 
sion of emigrations came from Ceylon, Java, and south - 

1 R. Shaw, " Creator and Cosmos," 2d ed., vol. i., p. 191. 

2 Ibid., p. 193- 



THE EARTH PEOPLED FROM ONE CENTRE. 42 1 

ern India to America many centuries before Columbus. 
In support of this, figures resembling the god Buddha 
seated on the head of Siva were found at Uxmal, 
Yucatan, etc. 

291. Similarity in Many Points. — At the time of 
the discovery of America, many points of similarity 
were found between its inhabitants and those of the 
Old World; for instance, in the arts, sciences, religious 
beliefs, habits, customs, and traditions. In the ruins of 
Gran Chimu idols of silver were found which are of the 
same type as Chinese idols. 1 The most curious analogies 
exist between the monuments, inscriptions, arms, modes 
of life, and customs of the ancient Americans and those 
of the Egyptians, Etruscans, Lybians, and Iberians. The 
Euscara language, the primitive tongue preserved by the 
French and Spanish Basques, resembles in a singular 
manner many native languages of America. 

Quatrefages, who studied the question of the origin of 
the American people very carefully, believes that the 
New World was peopled by three races, the yellow, the 
white, and the black. The yellow race is still represented 
in Brazil by the Botocudos. The white race occupied 
mainly the northwest. The black race, less numerous, 
inhabited the Isthmus of Panama. Certain tribes of 
Florida, Brazil, and California also belonged to the 
black race. 

292. Conclusion: It Cannot be Proved that the 
Earth was not Peopled from One Centre. — In 
concluding the discussion of this question, we shall quote 
Reusch, who says : " These observations show that it 
cannot be proved that the earth could not have been 
peopled from one centre. Former discussions have 
proved that it is physiologically possible that all the 
races of mankind have originated from one primitive 

1 Nadaillac, op. cit., p. 106. 



422 UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 

race ; that the many important points of resemblance 
in all the races of mankind and their unlimited power 
of fruitful intermarriage are distinctly in favor of the 
specific unity of mankind ; and that the differences which 
exist are no proof that the races are of different origin. 
The doctrine of the unity of mankind, i.e., the doctrine 
that the races of man are not to be traced back to differ- 
ent ancestors, is therefore one which does not contradict 
the certain results of scientific inquiry. Hence, if the 
Bible teaches that mankind is descended not only from 
similar, but from the same ancestors, that is, from a 
single pair, this is a statement on which natural science 
can give no judgment, for it is purely historical." ' 

The Americans of both north and south, therefore, 
together with the Polynesians, do not form an exception 
to the general rule: they descend like ourselves from 
Adam and Eve. u He hath made of one all mankind, 
to dwell upon the whole face of the earth." 2 

1 Reusch, " Bibel tmd Natur," p. 430. 

2 Acts xvii. 26. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

Preliminary remarks.— Anatomical organization of man. — Inner 
organs. — Man not confined to one kind of food.- — Fecundity 
of mixed races. — Examples.— Man a cosmopolite. — All men 
endowed with intelligence and reason. — All are social beings. 
— All are endued with speech and free-will. — All are relig- 
ious. — American Indians. — Negroes. — Conclusion. 

293. Specific Unity of Mankind. — Thus far we 
have seen that none of the characters which distinguish 
human races are specific characters. It remains for us 
to show that all the qualities which are proper to man 
alone, and which are not met with in animals, are found 
in all human races, and only in these. 

Races form but one species when they all present the 
same essential characters; that is, when in each of them 
the qualities which distinguish them from one another 
are not specific differences. We shall try to prove in the 
present chapter that all human races have, 1st, the same 
anatomical organization, and, 2d, the same intellectual 
and moral qualities. By these they are distinguished 
from all animals and constitute a species by them- 
selves. 

294. (1) All Men have the Same Anatomical 
Organization. — The anatomical organization is essen- 
tially the same in all human races, both fossil and living. 

" Dolichocephalous or brachycephalous, great or small, 
orthognathous or prognathous, quaternary man is always 
man in the full sense of the word. The more we 

study, the more we become convinced that every bone of 

423 



424 SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

the skeleton, from the largest to the smallest, carries 
with it, in its form and proportions, a certificate of ori- 
gin which it is impossible to discredit." ' 

At all times and in all races Ave find the same anatom- 
ical structure of the body, the same mean duration of life, 
the same mean temperature of the body, the same mean 
rapidity of the pulse, the same duration of pregnancy; 
the catamenia everywhere take place in the same manner ; 
dentition takes place at the same time ; the number of 
teeth is the same in all. The peculiar development of 
the breast bone, which in childhood consists of eieht, in 
youth of three, parts, that unite completely in adults, 
is found in all races. All men, too, are liable to sickness, 
although there are diseases to which the white races are 
especially subject, as yellow fever, for instance ; but there 
is no disease which may not attack any race. The true 
skin is the same in structure in all nations; the ao-e 
when manhood is attained is the same in all, as also 
the period when life begins to decline. 

All men, without exception, have the same upright 
attitude. Except in the form of the skull and pelvis, the 
skeleton presents no noteworthy difference. Every- 
where Ave find the same number of bones, similar in 
form and structure ; the same covering of the skeleton 
with muscles, Avhose number and arrangement in eA^ery 
part of the body is the same in all men. The arms 
and feet of all men have pOAverful sineAvs ; the thighs 
are common to them all ; and the hips of all men are 
provided with rounded buttocks. The smooth, almost 
hairless, skin which covers the muscles, in spite of dif- 
ferences of color, shoAvs no difference of function. The 
beard A'aries in its strength; the Caucasian race is the 
most faA'ored, the American the least; but no race is 
entirely deprived of beard. 

1 Quatrefages, ' L'Espece Htimaine," p. 220. 



INTERRACIAL FECUNDITY. 425 

295. No Man is Limited to One Kind of Food. — 
Camper says: "Every animal nourishes or feeds itself 
in the manner nature has prescribed, as we see in the 
carnivora. . . . Man, on the contrary, is omnivorous, 
i.e., he feeds on all kinds of food. His nourishment, of 
whatever nature it may be, does not cause any change 
in his mental faculties, nor in his constitution, nor in 
his prolific power. I am of the opinion that, excepting 
intelligence and speech, we should consider as the great- 
est advantages with which nature has endowed man 
above other creatures his ability to live on all kinds of 
food, and to preserve everywhere the power of multi- 
plying his species." l 

296. Interracial Fecundity. — The last-mentioned 
advantage is even more important than Camper thought ; 
it touches the very essence of our question. The 
fecundity of all races and tribes, no matter how crossed 
and intermarried, is proven by so many and so de- 
cisive instances that there cannot be any doubt of 
its being unlimited. Two of the most important na- 
tions of Europe are mixtures. The English have 
sprung from a mixture of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and 
Northmen; the French from Celts, Romans, and 
Franks. The offspring of Arabs and Frenchmen are 
inferior to their parents neither corporally nor intel- 
lectually. Negroes, Australians, and whites when 
crossed bring forth children whose unlimited power to 
propagate becomes the foundation of powerful families. 
It is said that when Hottentot women marry men of 
their own tribe they have three or four children ; when 
they couple with negroes this number of children is 
trebled, and marriages with white men are even more 
prolific. 2 Irish and Chinese, Malays and Hollanders, 

1 Camper, " Reponse a la Question de la Societe Batave," chap, 
vii. 2 Quatrefages, " L 'Unite de l'Espece Humaine," p. 334. 



426 SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

intermarry extensively in Australia and on the South. 
Sea Islands; a healthier and more numerous race is 
the result. From the union of Europeans with natives 
of the Philippines spring handsomer children than 
from the intermarriage of the whites among them- 
selves. 1 

297. The Mixing of Different Races does not 
Interfere with their Fecundity. — The mixing of 
different human races does not interfere with their 
fecundity — a clear proof that all mankind forms but one 
species. The Griquas, formerly called Basters, a popu- 
lation issued from the intermarriage of Hollanders and 
Hottentots, have become a fixed type. For more than two 
centuries they have dwelt upon the banks of the Orange 
River, and there they preserve their special features, in- 
termediate between those of their ancestors. They form 
numerous tribes to-day. The same is true of the Cafusos 
of Brazil, who owe their origin to the crossing of Ind- 
ians with negroes escaped from European settlements. 
The vigorous yellow population of Pitcairn Island (Pa- 
cific Ocean) is descended from a few English sailors and 
a dozen Tahiti women ; it trebled in thirty-three years — 
a manifest proof that the mixing of races does not im- 
pair their fecundity. 

Let us point out a few more mongrel races: The 
Papuas, whose color is chestnut and whose hair is flat, 
are a mixture of native woolly-haired negroes and 
Malays; the Malays themselves, who are undoubtedly 
sprung from the amalgamation of the white, yellow, 
and black races that have intermingled since remote anti- 
quity in southern and eastern Asia; the Zulus, whom 
their language and physical characters, as also certain 
traditions, prove to be descended from a mixture of 
negroes and whites; some Senegambian tribes, who, 
1 Waitz, " Anthropologic," vol. i., p. 202. 



MARRIAGES BETWEEN WHITES AND AUSTRALIANS. 427 

according to M. Simonnot, owe their color to native 
negroes and their physical strength to the Moors. 

Why not quote the millions of mongrels, mulattoes or 
others, who constitute one-fifth of the population of 
Mexico and Central America? Here Europeans as well 
as negroes crossed with native Indians to such an ex- 
tent that tables were constructed to calculate the frac- 
tion of European blood which rolls in the veins of the 
mongrels , in Chili and Peru almost the whole popula- 
tion consists of mongrels, the progeny of Indians and 
Spaniards. In other parts of South America may be 
found mixtures of every shade and degree, descended 
from Indians, negroes, and whites; and these treble 
crossings are a most decisive proof of the prolific power 
of crossed races. 1 In all the States mulattoes, descend- 
ants of negroes and whites, are numerous; in the colo- 
nies they increase so fast that they bid fair to become 
dominant. 

298. Objection: Barrenness of Marriages between 
Whites and Australians. — Polygenists object that the 
unions between whites and Australians remain barren in 
most cases. However, the fewness of such mongrels is 
disputed by Petermann and Quatrefages. Moreover, the 
barrenness of such unions can be explained by natural 
causes, such as prostitution and child-murder, drunken- 
ness, syphilis, etc. Most of the women do not return 
to their tribe till the age of thirty, when their fecun- 
dity is exhausted. Another objection is equally un- 
founded. It was asserted that when the native women 
of America and Australia have conceived by a European, 
they are incapable of bringing forth another child by a 
man of their own tribe. But Wallace and Murray quote 
several examples which show that the power to conceive 
is unlimited. 

] Darwin, " Descent of Man," vol. i., p. 198. 



428 specific unity of mankind. 

299. Mixed Human Races and Bastard Animals.— 
We have laid special stress on the indefinite fecun- 
dity of individuals coming from parents of different 
races. This criterion proves that all men, to whatever 
variety they may belong, form one single species. It 
is true that mongrels are also begotten by nearly- 
related, animal species, but these mongrels are mostly 
unfruitful. If now and then we find fecund indi- 
viduals among them, fecundity is not transmitted to 
following generations, while, as we have seen, stronger 
and more prolific races result from the mixing of dif- 
ferent human races. Let us conclude this subject with 
the words of John Muller : " The human races are forms 
of one single species, reproducing and propagating 
themselves ; they are not species of one genus ; if this 
were the case, their mixed breeds, when intermarried, 
would be barren." 1 

300. Man Can Live under all Climatic Con- 
ditions. — We present another proof of the unity of 
the human race : Man can live under all climatic con- 
ditions, though animals cannot. 

" The spot on earth is still to be found which cannot 
be inhabited or at least visited by man. " 2 " It is undeni- 
able that the same race can live successively in very 
different climates, and that this has in some cases oc- 
curred. This can be said of very few animals. Again, 
it is certain that the mode of life and the outward con- 
ditions to which a tribe is subject may, and often do, 
alter completely, while animals cannot bear such a 
change. Lastly, it is proven that a race may pass 
through various stages of civilization ; not so the ani- 
mals. Therefore, as the circumstances and conditions 
under which man can exist are so various, we see that 

! J. Muller, " Handbuch der Physiologie," vol. ii., p. 773. 
2 Peschel, " Volkerkunde," p. 21. 



ALL MEN ENDOWED WITH REASON. 429 

it is in accordance with the laws of nature if the varia- 
tion of his outward form is less limited than that of 
the animals." 

We must, no doubt, assume that men spread over the 
earth gradually and very slowly, so that climatic changes 
were never abrupt. If we suppose this, the process of 
acclimatization is quite conceivable. Peschel says: 

"If the transition to other climates takes place gradu- 
ally and at long intervals, there is no doubt that the 
same race of men may people every zone of the earth. 
For no one denies that the high-caste Hindoo, whether 
his home be in Bengal, in. Madras, or in Sinde, or in 
any other hot place of his native land, is of Aryan 
descent, just as much as the inhabitants of Iceland, and 
that the unknown ancestors of both must have inhabited 
a common home. All ethnologists are agreed that the 
aborigines of America, with the exception of the Esqui- 
maux at most, form a single race, and this has succeeded 
in. adapting itself to all climatic conditions, from the 
Arctic circle to the equator, and' again to the 50th de- 
cree of south latitude. We find Chinese in Maimatchin 
on the Siberian frontier, where the mean temperature is 
below the freezing-point and the thermometer falls to 
40 degrees below zero (Reaumur) in winter, and on 
the island of Singapore, which lies almost under the 
equator." 2 

301. (2) All Men are Endowed with Intelligence 
and Reason. — The intelligence of the so-called infe- 
rior races has been greatly undervalued; reason and 
intelligence exist in the least-endowed tribes, and there 
is between them a difference only of degree. All are 
susceptible of education and culture ; all are distin- 

1 Waitz, "Anthropologic," vol. i., p. 213. 

2 " V61kerkunde,"p. 21 ; Quatrefages, " L'Unite de l'Espece Hu- 
maine," p. 206. 



43° SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

guished by greater or less intelligence. The animals, 
especially those of the superior species, are not wanting 
in a certain (animal) intelligence and memory, but all 
of them are devoid of reason, while there is not a sin- 
gle human race which has not the faculty of reasoning, 
abstracting, and generalizing. 

302. All Men are Social. — All men, even the most 
savage, are social. It is a long time since Aristotle 
defined man as a "political animal," that is, a social 
animal. Certain animal species are also social, especially 
the bees and ants; but their organization is not the 
work of reason; is not supple and flexible like ours; 
it has not the family as basis, and cannot accommodate 
itself to circumstances of time and place. Human asso- 
ciation has the same end everywhere — security and 
mutual assistance, founded in part on the ties of friend- 
ship, in part on community of interests. It secures to 
the individual the means of existence, and special ad- 
vantages which he could not possess in a state of isola- 
tion. 

303. All Men Possess the Gift of Speech, and 
with it Liberty. — All human races are endowed 
with the gift of speech and with free-will , of this we 
have spoken in another chapter. We add the following. 
All men have been endowed by the Creator with free- 
will, the black man as well as the white, the Redskin 
as well as the Mongolian. This is the greatest gift 
granted to us, because it enables us to raise ourselves 
above ourselves. The Creator, in spite of His infinite 
power, could not produce a perfect creature ; as He could 
not create man perfect, He has created him perfectible. 
This is the grandest title of nobility, which all men 
have in common. It depends upon ourselves to elevate 
ourselves above ourselves. We are capable of progress, 
of intellectual and moral perfection : every day we can 



ALL MEN ARE RELIGIOUS. 43 I 

increase in science and virtue ; every day we can turn 
toward the ideal of the good and the true and approach 
it more closely. We are a divine plant, which has the 
power to produce, if it wishes, the most beautiful flowers. 

304. All Men are Moral Beings. ■ — While this 
power makes us perfectible, it makes us at the same 
time responsible, and capable of merit or demerit. 
All men, in fact, and men alone, are moral beings. 1 
No animal has a conscience like man; none distin- 
guishes good from evil. On the other hand, there is 
no human race that has not an idea of duty, of vice 
and of virtue, of a life beyond the grave. The senti- 
ment of filial piety exists everywhere; the idea of 
justice and mutual obligation is universal ; the grave vio- 
lation of the moral law among both savage and civilized 
peoples has as immediate chastisement remorse of con- 
science. The various elements of morality, it is true, 
are not equally clear and well developed in all races and 
nations ; but this is less due to the influence of the race 
than to the greater or less progress in intellectual cult- 
ure and in civilization, and to circumstances of every 
kind. 

305. All Men are Religious. — The moral senti- 
ment is inseparable from the religious. The religious 
character of man is so important that, in order to 
escape the inferences that follow therefrom, some poly- 
genists deny its universality, others contest its value. 
But unbiassed savants who have studied the question 
acknowledge in clear terms that there is no people 
without religion. " The assertion that there ought to be 
peoples or tribes without religion," says Thiele, "rests 
either on inexact observation or on a confusion of 
ideas. Never has a tribe or a nation been found which 

1 Cf. Quatrefages, " Histoire General e des Races Humaines," 
p. 253 seq. 



43 2 SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

did not believe in a superior being, and travellers who 
have denied this have been contradicted by facts." ' 

G. Roskoff, who has written a work on the religions 
of the so-called lower tribes, proves that even the most 
degenerate tribes are religious according to their no- 
tions. 2 We may consider the inhabitants of Tierra del 
Fuego as the most degraded American tribes. Never- 
theless Darwin was surprised by features in their re- 
ligious character which show how similar their mental 
faculties are to ours. 3 Traces of religion have been 
found even in the ruins which prehistoric men have 
left us. 

Thus all human races are religious as well as perfect- 
ible, moral, industrious, social, endowed with reason, 
with speech and free-will. Nothing of the kind is found 
among animals, man alone possesses these qualities, 
and he possesses them wherever his home, under every 
climate and in every latitude. 

306. Characters in which -Races Differ are 
Secondary. — Therefore there is no essential differ- 
ence between human varieties; all characters in which 
they differ are secondary. All mankind forms one 
single species. When we read in the works of some 
naturalists the description of the various races of men, 
we are tempted to ask whether they are not different 
species, nay, whether they are human beings at all; 
but a closer acquaintance with the races so caricatured 
clears up the matter, and fills us with astonishment 
at the ideas of these writers. Who, for instance, that 
has come in contact with Indians, Chinese, Japanese, 
or negroes can seriously doubt that they are the same 
men as ourselves? 

1 Thiele," Manuel del'Histoire des Religions,'' 2d ed., 1885, p. 12. 

2 Roskoff, " Religionswesen der Rohesten Volker," 1880. 

3 Darwin, " Descent of Man," vol. i., p. 204. 



MANY NEGROES THE PEERS OF THE WHITE MAN. 433 

307. The American Indians are Capable of Civ- 
ilization. — The poor Indians in America, it is true, 
are more or less degraded, more or less hostile to civil- 
ization and Christianity ; but who is to blame for this ? 
Have not civilized Christian Europeans and Americans 
wronged them, by teaching them hatred, contempt, 
drunkenness, immorality — in a word, every vice, and 
no virtue? How can the Indian accept culture from 
the Anglo-American settler, who shoots him down like 
a wild beast, poisons his wells and his food, cuts off 
♦his means of living, robs him of his hunting and fish- 
ing grounds, constantly pushes him on toward the 
frozen north, and has brought him a number of fatal 
diseases, especially the small-pox, so deadly to the 
Indian ? 

And still, some tribes, like the Cherokees, take up 
agriculture. A son of this tribe, without possessing any 
higher education, composed an alphabet of wonderful 
simplicity and usefulness. The children of the Indians, 
when educated with white children, often show that 
they are not only the equal of the whites in mental 
endowments, but even their superiors. 1 That the Ind- 
ians have talents like white men we can prove by 
numerous facts furnished by the Jesuit Fathers, who 
labor among them with so much zeal and success. 

308. Many Negroes are the Peers of the White 
Man. — The same is true even in a higher degree 
of the negroes. Some tribes, it is true, are very de- 
graded, especially in tropical climates, which exercise 
an enervating influence upon them; but some have 
reached a degree of civilization which proves them the 
equal of the white man in aptitude for education. Ac- 
cording to Dr. Mann, the Caffres of Natal are capable of 
civilization. Robins describes the Banus, northwest 

l Waitz, "Anthropologic" vol. iii., p. 240. 
28 



434 SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. 

of the Niger, as very intelligent and industrious. 1 
Magyar tells us that the Kimbunda negroes are very 
sprightly people, endowed with a very retentive mem- 
ory, thanks to which they learn foreign languages with- 
out effort, as well as to read, and to write. 2 The plea of 
A. Firmin, a negro of Hayti, in favor of the colored race, 
before the members of the Academy of Science in Paris, 
in 1885, is a proof of what we have said. 3 According 
to Decken, the East African tribe of the Wadschagga 
has made great progress in agriculture and the breeding 
of cattle. 4 Rohlfs and Barth tell us the same about the 
negroes of Bornu and Haussa. 

That the negro can reach a creditable position in gov- 
ernment, in art, and science, is proved by the clear- 
headed policy of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the dramatic 
ability of Ira Aldridge, the eloquence of the Caffre 
Tyo-Soga, and especially by the self-taught learning of 
the negro Banneker. The last became an astronomer 
without any teacher, aided only by a few books and 
instruments ; he published astronomical almanacs from 
the year 1792 to 1802. He furnishes the proof that 
there are talents slumbering in the negro which need 
only be awakened and cultivated to place him on a level 
with his white brethren. 

309. Some Europeans Little Superior to Some 

Negro Tribes. — These and many other examples we 

could adduce 5 refute the assertion that the negro is not 

capable of civilization, and that his inferiority is due to 

specific racial organization. Had he only animal in- 

1 " Ausland," 1886, p. 933; "Journal of Anthropology," 1866, 
p. in. 2 " Ausland,'' i860, p. 879. 

3 Cf. "De l'Egalite des Races Humaines," Paris, 1885. 

4 Kersten, " Reisen in Ost- Africa," 1869. 

5 Cf. Tiedemann, " Das Gehirn des Negers ;" Armstead, " A Trib- 
ute to the Negro ;" Gregoire, " Die Neger. Ein Beitrag zur Staats- 
und Menschenkunde," from the French, 1869. 



EUROPEANS AND NEGRO TRIBES. 435 

stinct, and no adaptability for intellectual development, 
no negro could reach the degree of intelligence which 
many consider the privileged endowment of the white 
man. The negro does not make the same progress in 
the sciences as the white man, but no doubt he would 
make greater progress if he devoted himself for a 
few generations to more systematic studies. Until now 
this was the privilege of a few individuals only. We 
must not forget that even in Europe, for instance, in 
Hungary, Ireland, England, Dalmatia, and in some 
provinces on the Danube, there are districts whose 
inhabitants hardly stand higher in civilization than some 
negro tribes in the Soudan. In our country we know 
from experience that, especially in some eastern and 
southern cities, where the negroes are, and were, allowed 
to live peacefully together with their white fellow -citizens 
for some generations, they have made great progress in 
education and civilization. 

We conclude that the account of Genesis, which teaches 
that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all mankind, 
is confirmed by science, and that Hollard is right when 
he says, "Mankind constitutes only one species, and it 
varies within the limits of one nature." l 

1 " Dictionnaire Universel des Sciences Naturelles," vol. viii., 
p. 340. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE DELUGE AND THE TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

Meaning of the word deluge.— The Biblical account of Noe's 
deluge confirmed by universal tradition. — Traditions in 
Asia. — Egypt.— Chaldea.— The account of Berosus.— Its 
striking resemblance with that of Genesis. — Is Ararat 
Armenia ?— Poem of Izdhubar, claimed to be anterior to 
Abraham.— Comparison.— Legends of the deluge among 
other nations.— Account of the Arameans.— Hindoos.— Ira- 
nians.— Aryan races. — American traditions. — Conclusion. 

310. What is Meant by the Deluge. — By the 
word deluge we mean the inundation which destroyed 
the entire human race, with the exception of Noe and 
his family. 1 Noe's Deluge was caused by the cor- 
ruption of men; it was a chastisement of God. On 
account of the holiness of his life, Noe and his wife, 
his three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth, and their 
wives, were saved by means of an ark, which the Lord 
had commanded him to construct. It floated on the 
waters, and when the great cataclysm was passed, it 
landed probably not far from the place where it had 
been built, on the mountains of Armenia, which thus 
became the second cradle of mankind. 

Noe, by the order of God, had taken with him into 
the ark of all clean beasts seven and seven, male and 

1 On this subject see Lambert, " Le Deluge Mosaique," 2d ed., 

1870; Hettinger, "Apologie," vol. ii., 1, pp. 3°3-3°9; Vigouroux, 

"Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., pp. 48i-5°3; -W-. "Manuel 

Biblique," vol. i., pp. 517-540; Reusch, " Bibel und Natur," pp. 

284-313; Guttler, " Naturforschung und Bibel," pp. 253-266; 

Pianciani, " Cosmogonia Naturale." 

436 



ORIENTAL TRADITIONS. 437 

female; but of the beasts that were unclean, two and 
two, male and female ; of the fowls also of the air, seven 
and seven, male and female: that seed might be saved 
upon the face of the earth. 

311. The Deluge Confirmed by Universal Tra- 
dition. — The historical reality of the Deluge is con- 
firmed by the universal tradition of mankind. It is the 
tradition par excellence among all nations. A. von Hum- 
boldt says : 

" The ancient legends of the human race, which we 
find dispersed throughout the world, like the fragments 
of a great shipwreck, are of the deepest interest to the 
philosophical inquirer into the history of mankind. 
Like certain families of plants, which preserve the com- 
mon type of ancestry in spite of light and climate, the 
cosmogonic traditions of nations everywhere display a 
similarity of form and feature which moves us to won- 
der. The most various languages belonging to entirely 
isolated tribes give us the same facts. The essential 
part of the record, which treats of humanity destroyed 
and the renewal of nature, hardly varies at all, but each 
nation has given to it its OAvn local coloring. On the 
continents and on the smallest islands it is always the 
highest and nearest mountain on which the remnants of 
the human race took refuge ; and the event becomes more 
recent as the people become more civilized, so that 
what they knew about themselves covers a shorter space 
of time." ' 

312. Oriental Traditions. — Among the Chaldeans 
the account of the great cataclysm is so similar to that 
of Genesis that the two narratives must have come from, 
the same source; the Hebrews, however, preserved it 
in all its purity. As regards the Egyptians, their mon- 
uments, so far, do not give us any account of the Deluge. 

1 " Reise in die ^Equinoctial-Gegenden," vol. iii., p. 408. 



43$ THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

The Hebrew traditions, which have so much in common 
with the Assyro-Chaldean traditions, are different from 
those of Egypt. Nevertheless, the Egyptians also have 
preserved a vague remembrance of the destruction of 
mankind by the gods. We see this from a mythological 
inscription on the tomb of Seti L, of the nineteenth 
dynasty at Thebes, published by M. Naville, 1 of which 
we subjoin the substance. 

313. Egyptian Traditions.— Ra, the divine king, if 
not the first, is at least one of the most ancient. The 
beginning of his reign is anterior to the rising of the 
firmament, and consequently goes back to the first period 
of creation. 2 The inscription on the tomb of Seti I. 
appears to have formed a part of the sacred books of 
Toth, "the writer of the gods." 3 

Ra assembles the gods and says to them : 

" Said by Ra to Nun : Thou the most ancient of the 
gods, from whom I am born, and you ancient gods, 
behold the men who were born through me ; they ex- 
press words against me ; tell me what you would do with 
regard to such behavior; behold, I have waited and did 
not kill them before having heard your advice. 

"Said by the Majesty of Nun: My son Ra, greater 
god than the one who created thee, I remain (full) of 
fear towards thee. Majesty, do thou reflect thyself (on 
what thou hast to do) . 

' Said by the Majesty of Ra : Behold they escape into 
the fields, and their hearts are afraid. . . . 

' Said by the gods : May thy countenance permit us 
to strike these men, thy enemies, who plot evil things 
against thee, and may none live among them. . . . 

" This goddess — a goddess under the form of Hathor, 

' Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," June, 
1875. 2 " Zeitschrift fur Egyptische Sprache," 1874, p. 57. 

3 De Rouge, " Notice des Monuments Egyptiens," p. 115. 



THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION. 439 

whose name is lost — departed and killed the men upon 
earth. . . . And behold, Sechti, during many nights, 
trampled their blood under foot, even to the city of 
Hierapolis." 

" Shall we admit that the destruction of these men 
implies the destruction of mankind?" asks M. Naville. 
"This seems evident to me," he answers. 

After having massacred the men, the wrath of Ra 
was appeased. 

" They put fruits into round vases . . . with the 
blood of men, and filled seven thousand pitchers of 
beverage thereof. 

" Ra comes to inspect the vases : Said by the Majesty 
of Ra : That is right ; I shall protect men on account 
of this. 

" Said by Ra : I raise my hand, that I shall not kill 
mankind any more." 

This offering of fruits and blood which appeased Ra 
and made him express a promise analogous to that of 
Genesis had been prepared by Sechti of Heliopolis, who 
had ground the fruits, while the priestess made them 
flow (?) into vases. 

After this offering we read : 

" The Majesty of Ra, the king of Upper and Lower 
Egypt, ordered the water from the vases to be poured 
out during the middle of the night, and thus the fields 
were completely submerged through the will of this 
god. The goddess, when arriving in the morning, found 
the fields covered with water. Her countenance became 
joyous, she drank abundantly thereof, and went away 
satiated. She did not perceive any men." 

Further on in the inscription we see that not all men 
had been exterminated. 

314. The Egyptian Tradition Resembles the 
Mosaic Account only Vaguely. — This account, ob- 



44° THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

serves Vigouroux, 1 is very different from that of Genesis, 
and, nevertheless, there exists between both a general 
resemblance, which makes a deep impression; it does 
not seem possible to explain it as an accidental coinci- 
dence. In both the Hebrew and the Egyptian account 
men are punished for revolting against God. The Lord 
exterminates them, with the exception of a small num- 
ber. A sacrifice is offered to Him. He promises not to 
destroy the human race again in that manner. This 
inscription on the tomb of Seti I. is best explained if 
we admit the historical character of Noe's flood and the 
destruction of men. The Egyptians had preserved its 
remembrance, but as the inundation of the Nile was 
wealth and life to them, they altered the primitive tra- 
dition ; mankind, instead of perishing in the waters, was 
exterminated, and inundation, greatest blessing in the 
valley of the Nile, becomes to them the mark by which 
the wrath of Ra was appeased. 2 

315. Two Chaldean Traditions about the Flood. 
— While the Egyptian tradition has only a general like- 
ness to the Mosaic account of the Flood, the Chaldean 
tradition, on the contrary, bears a striking resemblance 
to it. 

We have two versions of the Chaldean story, une- 
qually developed, but exhibiting remarkable agreement. 
The one, more ancient and shorter, is the account taken 
by the Babylonian priest, Berosus, 260 B.C., from the 
sacred books of Babylon. He introduced it into his 
history which he wrote for the Greeks. The other ver- 

1 " La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes," vol. i., p. 260. 

2 Some Egyptian philosophers said to Solon, who asked them 
about their antiquity . " After certain periods, an inundation 
sent from heaven changed the face of the earth; mankind per- 
ished several times in different ways; this is the reason why 
the new race of men is wanting in monuments and the knowl- 
edge of times past." — Plato in Timaeus. 



THE ACCOUNT OF BEROSUS. 44 1 

sion was discovered by George Smith among the ruins 
of the library of Assurbanipal, in the historical epic of 
a hero called Izdhubar. Berosus ivrote several centuries 
after the author of Genesis, while the heroic poem of 
Izdhubar is said to be older than Abraham. Both de- 
serve our earnest attention. We will begin with the 
less ancient. The Flood, according to the Bible, took 
place under Noe, the tenth patriarch; according to 
Berosus, under Xisuthrus, the tenth antediluvian king. 
Here is what he says. 

316. The Account of Berosus. — "It is under Xi- 
suthrus (Noe)," says Berosus, "that the great flood 
took place whose history is related in the Sacred Books. 
The god (Kronos) appeared to Xisuthrus in a dream, 
and warned him that on the fifteenth day of the month 
Daisius mankind would be destroyed by a flood. He 
bade him bury in Sippara, the city of the sun, the extant 
writings, first and last; and build a ship and enter 
therein with his family and his close friends, and furnish 
it with meat and drink, and place on board winged fowl 
and four-footed beasts of the earth; and when all was 
ready to set sail, Xisuthrus asked whither he was to 
sail, and was told, 'To the gods, with a prayer that 
it may fare well with mankind.' Xisuthrus was 
not disobedient to the vision, but built a ship five 
furlongs in length and two furlongs in breadth, and 
collected all that had been commanded him, and put 
his wife and children and close friends on board. 
The flood came. As soon as it ceased, Xisuthrus 
let loose some birds, which, finding neither food nor 
a place where they could rest, came back to the ark. 
After some days he again sent out the birds, 1 which 
again returned to the ark, but covered with mud. Sent 

1 So in Syncellus, " Chronographia,"p. 54; but in the Armenian 
Eusebius we read " other birds." Chron., Can., i., 3, p. 15. 



442 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

out a third time, the birds returned no more, and Xisu- 
thrus knew that the land had reappeared ; so he removed 
some of the covering of the ark and looked, and behold 
the vessel had grounded on a mountain. Then Xisu- 
thrus went forth with his wife and his daughter and his 
pilot, and fell down and worshipped the earth, and built 
an altar, and offered sacrifice to the gods ; after which 
he disappeared from sight, together with those who had 
accompanied him. They who remained in the ark and 
had not gone forth with Xisuthrus, now left and searched 
for him and shouted out his name ; but Xisuthrus was 
not seen any more. Only his voice answered them, 
saying : ' Worship God ; for because I worshipped God I 
am gone to dwell with the gods; and they who were 
with me have shared the same honor.' And he bade 
them return to Babylon and recover the writings at Sip- 
para and make them known among men ; and he told 
them the land in which they then were was Armenia. 
So they, when they heard all, sacrificed to the gods, and 
went their way on foot to Babylon, and having reached 
it recovered the buried writings from Sippara, and built 
many cities and temples, and restored Babylon. Some 
portion of the ark still continues in Armenia, in the 
Gordisean (Kurdish) Mountains ; and persons scrape off 
the bitumen from it to bring away, and this they use as 
a remedy to avert misfortunes. 

" The earth was still of one language when the prim- 
itive men, who were of great stature and despised 
the gods as their inferiors, erected a tower of vast 
height in order that they might mount to heaven. And 
the tower was now near to heaven, when the gods (or 
God) caused the winds to blow, and overturned the 
structure upon the men, and made them speak with 
diverse tongues ; wherefore the city was called Babylon." 
So far Berosus. 



genesis and the account oe berosus. 443 

317. The Above Account Compared with the 
Narrative of Genesis. — If we compare this account 
of Berosus with that of Genesis, we see that it has been 
altered in the course of time and lost several important 
traits; for instance, the moral cause of the Deluge, 
which was occasioned by the perversity of men, whom 
their crimes rendered worthy to perish. Moses did not, 
like Berosus, neglect this circumstance, which perhaps 
the more ancient form of the Assyrian tradition, in the 
poem of Izdhubar, had preserved, if we may understand 
some expressions of this document in a figurative sense. 
With this exception, the resemblance between the ac- 
counts of Moses and Berosus could not be more striking. 

On this subject Rawlinson says : * " We have here 
a harmony with Holy Scripture of the most remark- 
able kind — a harmony not confined to the main facts, 
but reaching even to minute points, and one which 
is altogether most curious and interesting. The Baby- 
lonians have not only in common with the great ma- 
jority of nations handed down .from age to age the 
general tradition of the Flood, but they are acquainted 
with the most of the particulars of the occurrence. 
They know of the divine warning to a single man, 2 the 
direction to construct a huge ship or ark, 3 the command 
to take into it a chosen few of mankind only, 4 and to 
devote the chief space to winged fowl and four-footed 
beasts of the earth. 5 They are aware of the tentative 
sending out of birds from it, 6 and of their returning 
twice, 7 but when sent out a third time returning no 
more. 8 They know of the egress from the ark by the 
removal of some of its covering, 9 and of the altar built, 

1 G. Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," vol. i., pp. 147, 148. 

2 Gen. vi. 13. * lb., vi. 14-16. 4 lb., vi. 18. 

5 lb., vi. 20. 6 lb., viii. 7. 7 lb., viii. 9-1 1. 

s lb., viii. 12. 9 lb., viii. 13. 



444 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

and of the sacrifice offered immediately afterward. 1 
They know that the ark rested in Armenia, 2 that those 
who escaped by means of it, or their descendants, jour- 
neyed toward Babylon ; 3 that there a tower was begun, 
but not completed — the building being stopped by 
divine interposition and a miraculous confusion of 
tongues. 4 As before, they are not content with the 
plain truth, but must amplify and embellish it. The 
size of the ark is exaggerated to an absurdity, 5 and its 
proportions are misrepresented in such a way as to out- 
rage all the principles of naval architecture. The trans- 
lation of Xisuthrus, his wife, his daughter, and his 
pilot — a reminiscence possibly of Enoch— is unfitly as 
well as falsely introduced just after they have been mi- 
raculously saved from destruction. The story of the 
tower is given with less departure from the actual truth. 
The building is, hoAvever, absurdly represented as an 
actual attempt to scale heaven ; and a storm of wind is 
somewhat unnecessarily introduced to destroy the tower, 
which from the Scripture narrative seems to have been 
left standing. It is also especially to be noticed that in 
the Chaldean legends the whole interest is made narrow 
and local. The Flood appears as a circumstance in the 
history of Babylonia, and the priestly traditionists who 
have put the legend into shape are chiefly anxious to 
make the event redound to the glory of their sacred 
books, which they boast to have been the special object 
of divine care, and represent them as a legacy from the 
antediluvian ages. The general interests of mankind 
are nothing to the local etymology, and the Deluge an 

1 Gen. viii. 20. 2 lb., viii. 4. 

3 lb., xi. 2. 4 lb., xi. 4-9. 

5 The ark is made more than half a mile long, whereas it was 
really only 300 cubits, which is at the utmost 600 feet, or less than 
an eighth of a mile. 



CUNEIFORM ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE. 445 

event which, made the Babylonians the sole possessors of 
primeval wisdom." 

318. Is the Ararat of Genesis Armenia? — Ac- 
cording to the Bible, the ark "rested upon the moun- 
tains of the Ararat/' and Berosus tells us that the vessel 
of Xisuthrus stopped in Armenia. 1 Rawlinson claims 
that Ararat is the usual word for Armenia in the As- 
syrian inscriptions. 2 In the original Babylonian text, 
whence Berosus drew his account, says Lenormant, 
the expression ought to be the same as in Genesis, for 
the most ordinary and most general name for Armenia 
in the cuneiform inscriptions is Urate or Ararti, 3 a 
name known to the Hebrews, but unknown to Greek 
and Latin geographers. St. Jerome, who was well ac- 
quainted with the Jewish interpretations of the Script- 
ures, translated Ararat by Armenia. 4 His translation 
shows that the sacred text does not designate the moun- 
tain on which the ark rested, but the countrv : " on the 
mountains of Ararat," and not on Mount Ararat, where 
Jewish and Armenian tradition have fixed the place. 

What are we to conclude from the preceding facts? 
Is the Ararat of Genesis Armenia or a chain of moun- 
tains ? This is a difficult question and cannot be solved 
to-day. Perhaps some future discovery will throw more 
light on the subject. 

319. Cuneiform Account of the Deluge, said to 
be Older than Moses. — Let us now examine the more 
ancient Chaldean document on the Deluge. 

1 The cuneiform account of the Deluge, which we subjoin, 
makes the vessel of Xisuthrus rest on Mount Nizir, but this indi- 
cation is useless, because no such mountain is known. 

2 Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," note 1, p. 147. 

3 " Essai de Commentaire de Berose," p. 299. 

4 Gen. viii. 4. The name Ararat occurs four times in the He- 
brew Bible. St. Jerome has translated it by the word Armenia : 
11. (iv.) Kings xix. 37; by Ararat: Is. xxxvii. 38; and Jer. li. 27. 



446 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

"By the side of this version (of Berosus)," says Lenor- 
mant, " which, interesting though it may be, is after all 
second-hand, Ave are now able to place an original Chal- 
deo-Babylonian edition, which the lamented George 
Smith was the first to decipher on the cuneiform tablets 
exhumed at Nineve and now in the British Museum. 
Here the narrative of the Deluge appears as an episode 
in the eleventh tablet, or eleventh chant, of the great 
epic of the town of Uruk. The hero of this poem, a 
kind of Hercules, whose name has not as yet been made 
out with certainty, being attacked by disease (a kind of 
leprosy) , goes with a view to its cure to consult the pa- 
triarch saved from the Deluge, Khasisatra, in the distant 
land to which the gods have transported him, there to 
enjoy eternal felicity. He asks Khasisatra to reveal the 
secret of the events Avhich led to his obtaining the priv- 
ilege of immortality, and thus the patriarch is induced 
to relate the story of the cataclysm. 

" By a comparison of the three copies of the poem 
that the library of the palace of Nineve contained, it 
has been possible to restore the narrative with hardly 
any breaks. These three copies were made by order 
of the king of Assyria, Assurbanipal, in the eighth cent- 
ury before Christ, from a very ancient specimen in the 
sacerdotal library of the town of Uruk, founded by the 
monarchs of the first Chaldean empire. It is difficult to 
fix precisely the date of the original, copied by Assyrian 
scribes, but it certainly goes back to the ancient empire, 
seventeen centuries at least before our era, and probably 
even beyond ; it was therefore written long before Moses 
and is nearly contemporaneous with Abraham. 1 Varia- 
tions in the three existing copies prove that the original 
was written in the so-called hieratic characters charac- 
ters which must have become difficult to decipher as early 
1 Some claim that it was even anterior to Abraham. 



TEXT OF THE CUNEIFORM ACCOUNT. 447 

as the eighth century before Christ ; for copyists differed 
in regard to the interpretation to be given to certain 
signs, and in other cases reproduced exactly the forms 
they did not understand. Finally, from a comparison 
of these variations, it appears that the original, tran- 
scribed by order of Assurbanipal, must itself have been a 
copy of some still more ancient manuscript in which the 
primitive text had already received interlinear com- 
ments. Some of the copyists introduced these into 
their text, others omitted them." ' With these prelim- 
inary observations Ave proceed to give the complete 
narrative ascribed in the poem to Khasisatra. 

320. Text of the Cuneiform Account of the 
Deluge.— "I will reveal to thee, O Izdhubar, the his- 
tory of my preservation, and tell thee the decision of 
the gods. The town of Shurippak, which thou knowest, 
is on the Euphrates. It was ancient, and in it (men did 
not honor) the gods. I alone was a servant of the great 
gods. (The gods took council on the appeal of) Ann: — 
(a deluge was proposed by) Bel, (and approved by Nebo, 
Nergal, and) Adar. 

'And the god (Ea), the immutable lord, repeated 
this command in a dream. . . . 'Man of Shurippak, 
build a vessel and finish it (quickly). I will destroy life 
and substance (by a deluge). Cause thou to go up into 
the vessel the substance of all that has life. The vessel 
thou shalt build ; 600 cubits shall be the measure of its 
length, and 60 the measure of its breadth and of its 
height. (Launch it) thus on the ocean, and cover it 
with a roof.' I understood and said to Ea, 'My lord, 
(the vessel) that thou commandest me to build thus, 
when I shall build it, young and old (shall laugh at me).' 
(Ea opened his mouth and) spoke : (' If they laugh at 
thee) thou shalt say to them, " He who has insulted me 
1 Cf. Lenormant, " Essai de Commentaire de Berose." 



448 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

(shall be punished) , (for the protection of the gods) is 
over me." I will exercise my judgment on that which 
is on high and that which is below. . . . Close the ves- 
sel. . . . Enter into it and draw the door of the ship 
toward thee. Within it, thy grain, thy furniture, thy 
provisions, thy riches, thy menservants, thy maidser- 
vants, and thy young people, the cattle of the field and 
the wild beasts of the plain, which I will assemble and 
send to thee, shall be kept behind thy door. . . .' On the 
fifth (the two sides of the bark) were raised. The 
rafters in its covering were in all fourteen. I placed 
its roof and I covered it. I embarked in it on the sixth 
day ; I divided its floors on the seventh, I divided the 
interior compartments on the eighth. I stopped up the 
chinks through which the water entered in. I poured 
on the outside three times 3600 measures of asphalt, 
and three times 3600 measures of asphalt within. 
Three times 3600 men, porters, brought on their heads 
the chests of provisions. I kept 3600 chests for the 
nourishment of my family, and the mariners divided 
among them twice 3600 chests. For (provision) I had 
oxen slain ; I appointed rations for each day. In (antici- 
pation of the need of) drinks, of barrels and of wine (I col- 
lected in quantity) like to the waters of a river; (of 
provisions) in quantity like to the dust of the earth .... 

" All that I possessed I gathered together — of silver, 
of gold, of the substance of life of every kind. I made 
my servants, male and female, the cattle of the fields, 
the wild beasts of the plains, and the sons of the people, 
all ascend (into the ship) . 

" Shamas (the sun) fixed the moment, and he an- 
nounced it in these terms: 'In the evening I will 
cause it to rain abundantly from heaven ; enter into the 
vessel and close the door. ' . . . When the evening of 
the day arrived I was afraid; I entered into my vessel 



TEXT OF THE CUNEIFORM ACCOUNT. 449 

and shut my door, and then confided to the pilot this 
dwelling, with all that it contained. 

" Mu-sheri-ina-namari ' rose from the foundations of 
heaven in a black cloud; Ramman 2 thundered in the 
midst of the cloud ; Nebo and Shurru marched before— 
they marched, devastating the mountain and the plain. 
Nergal, 3 the powerful, dragged chastisements after him. 
Adar 4 advanced, overthrowing before him. The arch- 
angels of the abyss brought destruction. By their ter- 
rors they agitated the earth. The flood of Ramman 
swelled up to the sky, and (the earth), grown dark, 
became like a desert. 

" They destroyed the living beings on the surface of 
the earth. The terrible deluge swelled up towards 
heaven. The brother no longer saw his brother: men 
no longer knew each other. In heaven the gods became 
afraid of the waterspouts, and sought a refuge; they 
mounted up to the heaven of Anu. 5 The gods were 
stretched out motionless, pressing one against another, 
like dogs. Ishtar wailed like a child ; the great goddess 
pronounced this discourse: 'Here is mankind returned 
into earth ; and theirs is the misfortune I have announced 
in presence of the gods.' ... ^1 am the mother who 
gave birth to men, and there they are, filling the sea 
like the race of fishes ; and the gods on their seats, by 
reason of that Avhich the archangels of the abyss ' are 
doing, weep with me!' The gods on their seats were in 
tears, and held their lips closed, (revolving) things to 
come. 

"Six days passed and as many nights; the wind, the 
waterspout, and the deluge-rain were in all their strength. 

1 A personification of rain. » The god of thunder. 

3 The god of war and of death. 

4 The Chaldean and Assyrian Hercules. 

5 The upper heaven of the fixed stars. 

29 



450 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

At the approach of the seventh day the deluge-rain grew 
weaker; the terrible waterspouts, which had been awful 
•as an earthquake, grew calm, the sea began to dry up, 
and the wind and the waterspout came to an end. I 
looked at the sea, attentively observing, and the whole 
race of man had returned to the earth; the corpses 
floated like sea-weed. I opened the window and the 
light smote on. my face. I was seized with sadness ; I 
sat down and wept, and the tears came over my face. 

" I looked at the regions bounding the sea, towards 
the twelve points of the horizon, but there was no land. 
The vessel was borne above the land of Nizir; the 
mountains of Nizir arrested the vessel, and did not per- 
mit it to pass over. For six days they thus stopped it. 
At the approach of the seventh day I sent out and loosed 
a dove. The dove went, turned, and found no place to 
light on, and came back. I sent out and loosed a swal- 
low; and it went, turned, and finding no place to light 
on, came back. I sent out and loosed a raven; the 
raven went, and saw the corpses on the waters ; it ate, 
rested, turned, and came not back. 

" I then sent out (the creatures in the vessel) towards 
the four winds, and offered a sacrifice. I raised the 
pile of my burnt-offering on the peak of the mountain. 
Seven by seven, I laid the measured vessels, 1 and be- 
neath I spread rushes, cedar-wood, and juniper. The 
•gods were seized with the desire of it — with a benevo- 
lent desire of it; they assembled like flies above the 
master of the sacrifice. From afar, in approaching, the 
great goddess raised the great zones that Anu made for 
the glory of the gods. 2 These gods, luminous as crystal, 
I will never leave; I prayed, in that day, that I might 
never leave them. 'Let the gods come to my sacrificial 

1 Vessels or vases with measured contents, for the offering. 

2 This is a metaphorical expression for the rainbow. 



TEXT OF THE CUNEIFORM ACCOUNT. 451 

pile! But never may Bel come to it, for he did not 
master himself, but he made the waterspout for the 
deluge, and he has numbered men for the pit.' 

" From far, in drawing near, Bel saw the vessel and 
stopped. He was filled with anger against the gods 
and against the heavenly archangels. 

"'No one shall come out alive! No man shall be 
preserved from the abyss !' Adar opened his mouth and 
said: he said to the warrior Bel, 'Who other than Ea 
should have formed this resolution? for Ea possesses 
knowledge and (he preserves) all.' Ea opened his 
mouth and spake: he said to the warrior Bel, 'O thou, 
herald of the gods, warrior, as thou didst not master 
thyself, thou hast made the waterspout of the deluge. 
Let the sinner carry the weight of his sins ; the blas- 
phemer the weight of his blasphemy. Please thyself 
with this good pleasure and it shall never be infringed ; 
faith in it (shall) never (be violated). Instead of thy 
making a new deluge, let lions and hyenas appear and 
reduce the number of men ; let there be famine and let 
the earth be (devastated) ; let Dibbara 2 appear and let 
men be mown down. I have not revealed the decision 
of the great gods: it is Khasisatra who interpreted a 
dream and comprehended what the gods had decided.' 

" Then, when his resolve (to destroy the remnant of 
men) was arrested, Bel entered into the vessel and took 
my hand and made me rise. He made my wife rise 
and place herself at my side. He walked round us and 
stopped short. He approached our group. 'Until now 
Khasisatra has been mortal, but now he and his wife 
are going to be carried away to live like the gods, and 
he will live afar, at the mouth of the rivers. ' They car- 
ried me away, and established me in a remote place, at 
the mouth of the stream." 

1 The god of epidemics. 



452 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

Such is the latest and best translation of this wonder- 
ful legend, from which only a few words of repetition 
have been omitted. 

321. Comparison between the two Chaldean 
Legends and the Account of Moses. — When Ave 
compare the two Chaldean forms of the legend with the 
account of Genesis, we observe that they, agree with it on 
several points and diverge on others. 

Berosus tells us that the boat of Xisuthrus was five 
furlongs in length and tAvo in AA T idth. The tablet of 
XineA^e giA 7 es it in less exaggerated dimensions. They 
are expressed in cubits like in the Bible. The three 
Avriters agree in the main as to Iioav the ark Avas built ; 
but the tAA'O Chaldean narratives make seA r eral persons 
enter the boat with Xisuthrus and Khasisatra, Avhile 
according to Genesis Noe, his Avife, his sons and their 
Avives alone Avere saAxd. Berosus and the author of 
the Izdhubar legend do not make any mention of the 
seAxn pairs of clean animals saA r ed from the Flood. The 
Chaldean historian does not tell us the date Avhen the 
Deluge began, Avhich is giA^en in the Bible. In reference 
to the duration of the Flood, there is a notable difference 
betAveen Genesis and the inscription. According to the 
former, Noe remained in the ark one year; according 
to the latter, only nineteen days elapsed betAveen the 
first rains and the last sending forth of the bird. Berosus 
is silent on this point. With regard to the place AA T here 
the ark stopped, Moses, as Ave saAv before, names the 
mountains of Ararat; the inscription, Nizir; Berosus, 
the Gordiaean (Kurdish) mountains. As there is no 
mountain knoAvn by the name Nizir, Ave cannot say 
whether the accounts agree on this point or not. 

The three documents giA T e the same account of the 
sacrifice offered to the diAunity bA T the men saA^ed from 
the inundation. The book of Genesis speaks of a 



LEGENDS OF THE FLOOD. 453 

promise made by God to man; so also do the inscription 
and the account of Berosus ; the former vaguely, the 
latter very clearly. The ancient poem of Erech or 
Uruk relates that Khasisatra received the gift of im- 
mortality and was placed at the mouth of the rivers ; 
according to Berosus, Xisuthrus at the end of the 
sacrifice disappeared from the eyes of those who were 
saved with him, and went to dwell with the gods, 
together with his wife, daughter, and pilot. The Bible 
says that Noe lived 350 years longer and died at the 
age of 950 years. Finally, one of the most remarkable 
features in the two stories is, that, abstracting from 
mythological amplifications, both give almost the same 
succession of incidents in describing the Flood. 

For the Christian world the Chaldean version of the 
Deluge has a great importance. Moses' account of 
the Deluge is confirmed by these documents. And we 
can easily understand the great interest its publication 
caused in the whole Christian world. In this discovery 
Ave may see how God watches over His revealed faith. 
At a time when the hydra of infidelity raises its head 
everywhere, attacking Holy Scripture in the most vehe- 
ment manner, God makes the Assyro-Chaldean monu- 
ments speak, holding up to the sceptics the words of 
Our Saviour: " I say to you that if these shall hold their 
peace, the stones will cry out;" 1 "The word of the 
Lord endureth forever."' 2 

322. Legends of the Flood among other Na- 
tions. — As regards the legends about the Deluge among 
other nations, Claudius says very truly: 

; These traditions are like the children of one father, 
where each one has its proper features, but all have 
certain family traits. What children have that is pe- 
culiar to each they have, I believe, each from itself; 
1 Luke xix. 40. 2 1. Peter i. 25. 



454 TH E DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

but what they have in common they have from the 
father." 

323. Aramean Legend.— The author of the treatise 
" On the Syrian Goddess " makes known to us the dilu- 
vian tradition of the Arameans, as it was narrated in the 
celebrated sanctuary of Hierapolis, or Bambyce. It 
was derived directly from that of Chaldea. 

"The generality of people," he says, "tell us that the 
founder of the temple was Deucalion Sisythes — that 
Deucalion in whose time the great inundation occurred. 
I have also heard the account given by the Greeks of 
Deucalion. The myth runs thus: The present race of 
men is not the first, for there was a previous race, all 
the members of which perished. We belong to a second 
race, descended from Deucalion, and multiplied in the 
course of time. As to the former men, they are said to 
have been full of insolence and pride, committing many 
crimes, disregarding their oaths, neglecting the rights of 
hospitality, unsparing to suppliants; accordingly they 
were punished by an immense disaster. All on a sudden 
enormous volumes of water issued from the earth, and 
rains of extraordinary abundance began to fall; the 
rivers left their beds, and. the sea overflowed its shores; 
the whole earth was covered with water, and all men 
perished. Deucalion alone, because of his virtue and 
piety, was preserved to give birth to a new race. This is 
how he was saved: He placed himself, his children, and 
his wives in a great coffer that he had, in which pigs, 
horses, lions, serpents, and all other terrestrial animals 
came to seek refuge with him. He received them all; 
and while they were in the coffer Zeus inspired them with 
reciprocal amity, which prevented their devouring one 
another. In this manner, shut up within one single cof- 
fer, they floated as long as the waters remained in force. 
Such is the account given by the Greeks of Deucalion. 



LEGENDS OF THE HINDOOS, ETC. 45 5 

"But to this, which they also tell, the people of Hier- 
apolis add a marvellous narrative : that in their country 
a great chasm opened, into which all the waters of the 
Deluge poured. Then Deucalion raised an altar, and 
dedicated a temple to Hera (Atargatis), close to this very 
chasm. I have seen it; it is very narrow, and sit- 
uated under the temple. Whether it Avas once large 
and has now shrunk, I do not know, but I have seen it, 
and it is quite small. In memory of the event, the fol- 
lowing is the rite accomplished: Twice a year sea- water 
is brought to the temple. This is not only done by 
the priests, but numerous pilgrims come from beyond 
the Euphrates, bringing water. It is poured out in the 
temple and goes into the cleft, which, narrow as it is, 
swallows up a considerable quantity. This is said to be 
in virtue of a religious law instituted by Deucalion to 
preserve the memory of the catastrophe and of the ben- 
efits that he received from the gods. Such is the ancient 
tradition of the temple." 

324. Legends of the Hindoos, Iranians, Aryans, 
Persians, Greeks, Celts, Scandinavians. — In India, 
as in Chaldea, we find two accounts of the Deluge, which, 
by their poverty in details, contrast strikingly with those 
of the Bible and the Chaldeans. The most simple and 
ancient form, which we will quote here, is found in the 
Qatapatha Brahmana of the Rig- Veda. It has been 
translated for the first time by Max Miiller. 

" One morning water for washing w^as brought to 
Manu, and when he had washed himself a fish remained 
in his hands and addressed these words to him : ' Pro- 
tect me and I will save thee.' 'From what wilt thou 
save me?' 'A deluge will sweep all creatures away; it 
is from that I will save thee.' 'How shall I protect 
thee?' The fish replied: 'While we are small we run 
great dangers, for fish swallow fish. Keep me at first 



456 THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

in a vase; when I become too large for it, dig a basin 
to put me into. When I shall have grown still more, 
throw me into the ocean ; then I shall be preserved from 
destruction.' Soon it grew a large fish. It said to 
Manu: 'The very year I shall have reached my full 
growth the deluge will happen. Then build a vessel 
and worship me. When the waters rise, enter the ves- 
sel, and I will save thee. ' 

" After keeping him thus, Manu carried the fish to 
the sea. In the year indicated Manu built a vessel and 
worshipped the fish. And when the deluge came, he 
entered the vessel. Then the fish came swimming up 
to him, and Manu fastened the cable of the ship to the 
horn of the fish, by which means the latter made it pass 
over the Mountain of the North. The fish said: 'I have 
saved thee ; fasten the vessel to a tree, that the water 
may not sweep it away while thou art on the mountain ; 
and in proportion as the waters decrease, thou shalt 
descend.' Manu descended with the waters, and this is 
what is called the descent of Manu on the Mountain of 
the North. The deluge had carried away all creatures. 
and Manu remained alone." 

Among the Iranians, in the sacred books containing the 
fundamental Zoroastrian doctrines, and dating very far 
back, we meet with a tradition which must assuredly be 
looked upon as a variety of the Deluge tradition, though 
possessing a special character, and differing in some 
essential particulars from those we have been examin- 
ing. It relates how Yima, who, in the original and 
primitive conception, was the father of the human race, 
was warned by Ahuramazda, the good deity, that the 
earth was about to be devastated by a flood. The eod 
ordered Yima to construct a refuge, a square garden 
{vara) , protected by an enclosure, and to cause the germs 
of men, beasts, and plants to enter it, in order to escape 



AMERICAN TRADITIONS. 457 

annihilation. Accordingly, when the inundation oc- 
curred, the garden of Yima, with all that it contained, 
was alone spared, and the message of safety was brought 
thither by the bird Karshipta, the envoy of Ahura- 
mazda. 1 

All the Aryan races— the Persians, Greeks, Celts, 
Scandinavians— had their legends of the Deluge. The 
Chinese say that Fo-hi, to whom they ascribe the origin 
of their civilization, escaped the great cataclysm with 
his wife, three sons, and three daughters. 2 The Phoe- 
nician mythology relates the victory of Pont (ocean) 
over Damaros (earth). 3 The medal of Apamea, repre- 
senting the Deluge, is well known. On it is represented 
a square vessel, floating on the waters, which contains a 
man and a woman. Above the latter, the medal repre- 
sents two birds, one roosting on the boat, the other 
flying toward the first one, carrying between its claws 
an olive branch. Noe and his wife are represented 
thereon in the attitude of going forth from the ark. All 
these details remind us of those which Genesis gives. 
The Armenians asserted that in the time of the emperor 
Augustus there were still remains of the ark in their 
country on the mountain Barris (ship) . All these tra- 
ditions keep close to the account of Moses, as also to 
the well-known tradition of the Hellenes concerning the 
Deluge of Ogyges. 

325. American Traditions.— "It is a remarkable 
fact, "says Maury, "that the American traditions of the 
Deluge come infinitely nearer to those of the Bible and 
the Chaldean religion than those found among any peo- 
ple of the Old World." 4 

1 Cf. Lenormant, " Vendidad," vol. ii„ p. 46. 

2 Klaproth, "Asia Polyglotta," p. 12. 

3 Wandsbecker, "Bote Thl.,"vii., p. 105. 

4 "Revue des Deux Mondes," vol. xxvii., p. 643. 



45§ THE DELUGE AND TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. 

The most important among the American traditions 
of the Deluge are the Mexican ; they appear to have 
been definitely fixed by symbolic and mnemonic paint- 
ings before any contact with Europeans. Among the 
many variations, not a few believed that a vulture was 
sent out of the ship, and that, like the raven of the 
Chaldean tablets, it did not return, but fed on the dead 
bodies of the drowned. Other versions say that a hum- 
ming-bird alone, out of many birds sent off, returned 
with a branch covered with leaves in its beak. Among 
the Cree Indians of the present day, in the Arctic circle, 
in North America, J. Richardson found similar traces 
of the great tradition. He says: 

"The Crees spoke about a universal deluge, caused 
by an attempt of the fish to drown one who was a kind 
of demigod, with whom they had quarrelled. Having 
constructed a raft, he embarked with his family and all 
kinds of birds and beasts. After the flood had contin- 
ued some time, he ordered several water-fowl to dive to 
the bottom, but they were all drowned. A muskrat, 
however, having been sent on the same errand, was 
more successful, and returned with a mouthful of mud." 
From other tribes in every part of America, travellers 
have brought many variations of the same world-wide 
tradition ; nor are even the scattered islands of the great 
southern ocean without versions of their own. In 
Tahiti the natives used to tell of the god Ruahatu hav- 
ing told two men " who were at sea fishing : Return to 
the shore, and tell men that the earth will be covered 
with water and all the world will perish. To-morrow 
morning go to the islet called Toamarama ; it will be a 
place of safety for you and your children. Then Ruahatu 
caused the sea to cover the lands. All were covered, 
and all men perished except the two and their families." 
1 Gaussin, " Du Dialecte de Tahiti," etc., p. 255. 



WHAT DO ALL THESE TRADITIONS TEACH US? 459 

In other islands Ave find legends recording the building 
of an altar after the Deluge, the collection of pairs of 
all the domestic animals to save them, while the Fiji 
islanders give the number of human beings saved as 
eight. 2 

326. What do All these Traditions Teach Us? 
—Thus the story of the Deluge is a universal tradition 
among all branches of the human family, with the one 
exception, as Lenormant tells us, of the black. How 
could such a tradition arise, but from the ineradicable 
remembrance of a real and terrible event? It must, 
besides, have happened so early in the history of man- 
kind that its story could spread with the race from its 
original cradle, for the similarity of the versions points 
to a common source. 2 

1 Hardwick's " Christ and other Masters," vol. ii., p. 185. 

2 Cf. C. Geikie, " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., pp. 204, 205. 



CHAPTER XV. 

GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

Geology has no facts that are at variance with the tradition of the 
Deluge. — Geological facts. — Erratic rocks. — Bone caves. — 
Osseous breccias. — Tufaceous limestone. — Geology con- 
firms the Deluge. — Universality of the Deluge. — Three sys- 
tems. — First : absolute universality. — Second : restricted 
universality. — This system is not in contradiction with the 
Sacred Text. — Arguments in its favor. — Important question. 
— Third: more restricted universality. — The Deluge did not 
cause the death of certain Mongolian and Ethiopean races. — 
Can such a view be maintained? — Conclusion. 

327. Geology not Opposed to the Tradition of 
the Deluge. — The first geologists believed they had 
found direct proofs of the submersion of part, at least, 
of the earth in historic times. The English geologist 
Sedgwick at first defended the theory of the Geolog- 
ical Diluvium and Noe's Deluge, and then gave it up. 
In the speech in which he expressed his change of 
opinion, after giving the reasons against his former 
theory, he used the following striking language : 

" Are, then, the facts of our science opposed to the 
sacred records ? and do we deny the reality of a histor- 
ical deluge? I utterly reject such an inference. In the 
narrative of a great fatal catastrophe handed down to 
us, not in our sacred books only, but in the traditions of 
all nations, there is not a word to justify us in looking 
to any mere physical monuments as the intelligible 
records of that event; such monuments, at least, have 
not yet been found, and it is perhaps not intended that 

they ever should be found. But there is a general 

460 



GEOLOGY AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE DELUGE. 46 1 

accordance between our historical traditions and the 
phenomena of geology. Both tell us in language easily 
understood, though written in far different characters, 
that man is a recent sojourner on the face of the earth. 
Again, though Ave have not as yet found the certain 
traces of a great diluvian catastrophe which we can affirm 
to be within the human period, we have at least shown that 
paroxysms of internal energy, accompanied by the ele- 
vation of mountain chains, and followed by mighty Avaves 
desolating Avhole regions of the earth, were a part of the 
mechanism of nature. And what has happened again 
and again, from the most ancient up to the most modern 
periods in the natural history of the earth, may have 
happened once during the feAv thousand years that man 
has been living on its surface. We have therefore taken 
aAvay all anterior incredibility for the fact of a recent del- 
uge ; and Ave have prepared the mind doubting about 
the truth of things of which it knoAvs neither the origin 
nor the end for the adoption of this fact on the weight 
of historical testimony." ' 

Pfaff also says : " If the Deluge is supposed to have 
been a partial flood, only affecting the regions which 
Avere inhabited in the earliest times, and not a universal 
flood covering the whole earth, no objection can be made 
to it on the part of natural science. Natural science 
knows of the possibility, and history tells us of the 
reality of such floods in our ages." 

Pfaff further explains the fact that geology does not 
afford any positive confirmation of the Biblical record, 
in the following manner: 

''A passing flood Avhich lasted only for a short time,- 
such as the Deluge is represented to have been, Avould 
not leave any traces which would not be Aviped out 

1 Address at the Anniversary Meeting of the Geological Soci- 
ety, 1 83 1, p. 34. 



462 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

again by the continued changes produced by the influ- 
ence of the atmosphere and of vegetation. The occur- 
rence of a flood can be proved only by stratified deposits, 
and the period in which these were found can be ascer- 
tained only by their organic contents. But we cannot 
possibly expect to find any deposits of that particular 
flood, however considerable it may have been, which 
could now, after thousands of years, be identified and 
distinguished from deposits produced by other causes." * 

The Abbe Moigno speaks in a similar manner, adding 
that geologists can have no interest in the Deluge, nor 
have we a right to ask them for traces of it. The bodies 
of the men and animals that were destroyed in the Del- 
uge were devoured by wild animals and birds, or 
decayed and were dissolved by the action of the atmos- 
phere ; and Ave should seek in vain for the antediluvian 
fossil man. 2 Besides, as Pfaff adds, it is precisely in 
those regions which probably were the dwelling-place 
of the first man and the principal scenes of the Deluge 
that no rigorous search for possibly existing traces has 
been instituted. 3 

Thus the geologists who believed they had found 
direct proofs of the submersion of a part at least of the 
earth in historical times, have to-day generally aban- 
doned this idea. We admit that such an opinion is 
little probable, for an inundation of only one year could 
not leave on the soil traces characteristic enough to be 
distinguished from anterior inundations and to be rec- 
ognized with certitude several centuries after. We 
remark, however, that geologists are not wanting who 
•believe that, in fact, the Deluge or the effects of the 
Deluge did not pass away within the space of one year. 

1 Pfaff, " Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 659 seq. 

2 " Les Deux Mondes," vol. xx., no. 1, May, 1869, p. 24. 

3 Cf. Reusch, " Bibcl unci Natur," p. 296. 



ERRATIC ROCKS. 463 

They assume that its first shock took place only in Asia, 
that it afterward extended all over the world, and thus 
required many years before the last shocks had disap- 
peared altogether. 

328. Geological Facts. — There exists between the 
tertiary strata and the modern strata almost everywhere 
on the globe a layer formed of gravel, clay, sand, and 
rolled pebbles; it is in this layer the first observers 
recognized traces of the Deluge. They attributed 
the sediments they met there to this great flood, and 
consequently they called the strata which contained 
these things diluvium. The geologists of to-day have 
kept the name " diluvium," but they give a different 
explanation of the formation of these deposits of sand 
and clay, which they refer to the quaternary and post- 
pliocene period. According to contemporary savants, 
the diluvium is not the work of one year and of one 
violent cataclysm, but the result of a long series of rev- 
olutions, conformable to the ordinary laws of nature, in 
which water played an important but not an exclu- 
sive part. If the Flood was a cause of these revolu- 
tions, it was not the only one. 

329. Erratic Rocks. — It is to this period that the 
erratic rocks belong of which we spoke in another 
place. These rocks are of various sizes, some measur- 
ing 40,000 cubic feet. They are found at very great 
distances from the rocks to which they originally appear 
to have belonged. They were transported and scattered 
over the whole North German plain as far as Poland and 
Russia; and it is unanimously assumed by geologists 
that they are not of local origin, but were carried there 
from the mountains of Scandinavia or Finland. They 
are identical with the rocks of these mountains in their 
formation. Similarly, blocks of granite which originally 
formed part of the opposite Alpine range are found in 



464 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

the Jura Mountains. The same fact has been noticed 
in England, Belgium, Holland, France, in North Amer- 
ica, and in the neighborhood of the Cordilleras. They 
are also met with on the Himalaya, Lebanon, Sinai, and 
in New Zealand. Erratic rocks are often detached from 
the highest summits of the Central Alps, and are 
scattered through Switzerland and Italy. Humboldt, 
von Buch, Deluc, Dolomieu, Cuvier, Buckland, Sedg- 
wick (the latter for a time), and others, supposed that 
these rocks had been transported by the waters ; so it 
was quite natural to see in them Avitnesses of the 
Deluge. But this explanation is abandoned to-day be- 
cause, besides the difficulty of accounting for the re- 
moval of rocky masses measuring 40,000 cubic feet by 
means of a flood, it is in manifest conflict with the facts 
revealed by careful observation of the erratic blocks. 
Their angles are not broken and rounded, as they cer- 
tainly would be if they had been rolled by the w r ater. 
They have been carried aw T ay by glaciers ; and these 
glaciers, not the Deluge, explain the existence of the 
erratic blocks on the tops of the highest mountains and 
in far-distant countries. Consequently, following Car- 
dinal Wiseman, 1 we decline to see in these erratic blocks 
a geological proof of the reality of the Biblical deluge. 

330. Bone Caves and Osseous Breccias. — It is 
equally difficult to regard bone caves and osseous brec- 
cias as proof of the Mosaic deluge, as several geologists 
attempted to do. We find, especially in limestones, 
natural caves, which are again narrowed into passages 
that lead into new chambers, and sometimes extend to 
vast distances underground. Masses of chalk, lime, 
sand, and all kinds of rolled stones, have been swept 
or fallen into these caves through the openings which 
connect them with the surface of the earth. Under 
1 " On the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion." 



BONE CAVES AND OSSEOUS BRECCIAS. 465 

these rolled stones we find in many caves great quan- 
tities of bones, generally not petrified, but in their nat- 
ural condition, often, however, covered with stalagmite 
or cemented together. It is possible that these bones 
have been washed into the caves with the rolled stones. 
But as the bones are not polished and have not lost 
their outline, as would be the case had they been 
washed down and rolled about by the water, we must 
suppose that animals got into the caves, that they 
decayed there, and that their skeletons were preserved, 
and a coating deposited on them which saved them 
from decomposition. If this be correct, either the 
animals lived in the caves and died a natural death 
there, or they were suffocated and buried, by water 
which flowed in, or their corpses were washed in. 
It is supposed that the former occurred in those caves 
which contain chiefly the bones of one kind of 
animal; for instance, bears or hyenas. Thus, in a 
cave at Kirkdale, England, which was explored by 
Buckland, hyena bones were chiefly found. It is sup- 
posed that it was inhabited by hyenas, and the bones of 
horses, oxen, and deer, which were found with them, are 
those of animals which were dragged into the cave by the 
hyenas ; it is said that whole layers of the excrement of 
hyenas were found there. Other caves contain the 
bones of graminivorous animals only, e.g., horses, uni- 
corns, sheep, and deer; and as these animals do not 
usually inhabit caves, it is supposed that they sought a 
refuge there, flying from the terrors of some convulsion 
of the earth, or, as is more likely, that the lair of these 
animals was in some neighboring place, and a stream of 
water washed them into the cave in which they were 
found. The bones of at least 1000 animals have by 
degrees been extracted from the Geilenreuth Cave in 
Bavaria, of which more than 800 were of bears, 130 of 
30 



466 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

wolves, hyenas, lions, and wolverines. These animals 
cannot all have lived in the cave together; we must 
therefore suppose that their bodies were washed into it 
with all kinds of rolled stones and mud. 

Besides the bone caves, there are the osseous breccias. 1 
These are fragments of bones— the teeth of large and 
small mammals, besides shells, the remains of plants 
and wood, pieces of limestone, and other rubbish — 
which fill fissures in the older rocks and have been 
cemented into a solid mass by calcareous cement or clay. 

The bone caves, of which many have been found 
in different countries, ours not excepted, lie in most 
cases so high above the neighboring rivers that the 
latter could not reach them when overflowing, so that 
their contents must have been deposited by very exten- 
sive inundations. The fact that the animals whose 
remains are found in the bone caves belong not to the 
older formations, but the present animal world, or are 
very closely related to it, favors the supposition that 
these floods are identical with the deluge in the time of 

Noe. 

331. Tufaceous Limestone at Cannstadt. — We 
may also mention that to this class of geological facts 
belong the deposits of tufaceous limestone at Cann- 
stadt, in which numerous mammoth bones and teeth 
are found ; the enormous deposits of clay in the pam- 
pas of South America, with the skeletons of gigantic 
sloths, ant-eaters, armadillos, and the like; the "loess," 
a yellowish-gray sandy gravel, produced by alluvial 
deposits of several rivers, especially of the Rhine, in 
which such deposits are found as high as 600 feet above 
the level of the sea. 2 Of a similar character are the 

1 Noggerath, " Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften," vol. iii., 

p. 159. 

2 Lyell, " Elements of Geology," vol. 1., p. 119. 



DEPOSITS DUE TO THE DELUGE. 467 

metalliferous deposits, 1 that is, those masses of conglom- 
erate (gravel, sand, and lime) in which metals are found, 
especially gold, platinum, tin, and precious stones,' 
which have been carried away from their original beds 
by flowing streams of water. It is supposed that 
metals and precious stones originally formed part of 
older formations; the rocks surrounding them were 
crushed and destroyed, the rubbish was dissolved and 
washed away with the precious stones and lumps of 
metal it contained, and deposited in valleys, ravines, 
and hollows. It is supposed that this washing and 
intermingling took place in the period of the Flood, 
because the gold, platinum, and ores found in the 
Ural Mountains contain the remains of the mammoth 
and rhinoceros, and those found in Australia, the bones 
of extinct species of the opossum. The ores found in 
the beds of rivers are in most cases probably pro- 
duced by the uprooting and intermingling of older 
deposits ; but these older deposits must in their turn be 
traced back to earlier important floods. 2 

33 2 - It is Possible that Some of these Deposits 
and Remains are Due to the Deluge of Noe.— It 
is possible, as Reusch says, and geologists cannot prove 
the contrary, that some of these deposits and remains of 
bones, skeletons, etc. , are due to the great catastrophe re- 
lated in Genesis, but this cannot be directly proved for 
any of them, and it is certain that some of these remains 
come from altogether different sources : partial inunda- 
tions, the dwellings of the primitive men, caves, etc. 

Geology, therefore, does not directly establish the 
reality of the Deluge. But it bears witness to many 
traces of partial inundations, of which it cannot deter- 
mine the exact date. 

1 N6ggerath, op. at, vol. iii., p. 292. 
2 Reusch, op. cit. , p. 263 seq. 



468 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 



3 



J 33. The Universality of the Deluge.— The ex- 
tent of the Deluge has been a subject of animated 
discussion. Until within the last generation its uni- 
versality was hardly questioned. At present minds are 
greatly divided on the subject. Still the majority doubts 
that the deluge covered the whole earth. The questions 
to be examined are: Did Moses mean that the Flood 
was universal? If so, in what sense did he mean this? 

334. Three Systems.— The universality of the cata- 
clysm described in Genesis can be understood in a triple 
sense: 1 1. In the sense that the waters covered the 
whole earth, without leaving a dry spot on it. 2. In a 
restricted sense, i.e., that the waters inundated only the 
inhabited earth. 3. In a yet more restricted sense, 
namely, that the Deluge caused the destruction of the 
race of Seth only, and not of the whole of mankind. 

335. First System: Absolute Universality of 
the Deluge. — The ancient interpreters believed that 
the Deluge was universal in the widest sense of the 
word— that no spot on the globe was left above water. 
They accepted in the literal sense the words of the 
Sacred Text, " And the waters prevailed beyond meas- 
ure upon the earth ; and all the high mountains under 
the whole, heaven were covered." The reasons which 
led them to this conclusion are : 1 . The terms which 
Moses employs, and which do not seem to admit any 
exception. 2. The universality of the traditions of the 

Deluge. 

336. Second System: The Flood was Universal 
over the Inhabited Earth.— The theologians of 
our days, however, do not interpret the words of the 
Bible so literally, and say that Moses wished to empha- 
size the destruction of the whole human race, with 
the exception of the eight persons in the ark, though 

1 Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique," vol. i., p. 5 26 scq. 



THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL OVER THE INHABITED EARTH. 469 

the waters did not cover the whole earth. In other 
words, they admit the universality of the Deluge for 
the part of the earth inhabited by the human race. 
The principal representatives of this view are : in Italy, 
P. Pianciani, S.J.; 1 in France, Maupied, 2 Marcel de 
Serres, 3 Lambert, 4 Schoebel, 5 Sorignet, 6 Godefroy, 7 Sal- 
mon, 8 Vigouroux, 9 Duihle; 10 in Belgium, P. Bellynck, 
S.J., 11 P. Delsaux, S.J., 12 P. Schouppe, S.J.; 13 in Ger- 
many, Dr. Hettinger, 14 Lorinser, 45 Veith, 16 Zschokke, 17 
P. Bosizio, S.J., 1 * Reusch, 19 Michaelis, 20 Guttler ; 21 in 
England and America, C. Geikie, 22 J. W. Dawson, 23 etc. 
337- The Second System is Adopted by Most 
Scriptural Exegetists.— This view is adopted by 
most authorities who have recently written on the har- 
mony between the Bible and the natural sciences. 

1 '^ Cosm °g° nia naturale comparata col Genesis Rome, 1862. 
"Dieu, l'Homme, et le Monde," vol. iii., p. 803 seq. 

3 " Cosmogonie de Moise," etc., p. 154 seq. 

4 " Le Deluge," etc., p. 370 seq. 

* " De l'Universalite du Deluge," Paris, 1854. 
€ " La Cosmogonie de la Bible," Paris, 1878. 
" Cosmogonie de la Revelation,' p. 293 seq. 
8 " La Sainte Bible," Paris, 1878. 
6 "Manuel Biblique," 6th edition, Paris, 1888, p. 526^. 

" Apologie Scientifique," Paris, 1885, p. 441 seq. 

1 "Etudes Religieuses," etc., 1868, vol. ii., p. 578. 
'Revue Catholique," Louvain,' 1876, vol. xli., p. 295. 
"Cursus Scripturae Sacrag," Bruxelles, 1876, vol. i., p. 178. 

4 "Apologie des Christenthums," vol. ii., 1, p. 303. 

' " Das Buch der Natur," Regensburg, 1877, vol. ii., p. 249. 

' Die Anfange der Menschenwelt," Wien, 1865, p. 369. 

' Historia Sacra Veteris Testamente," Wien, 1863, p. 20. 

" Geologie und Sundfluth," Mainz, 1877, P- 105. 

" Bibel und Natur," 3d edition, Freiburg, 1870, p. 288 sea 
2C " Quotes," Guttler. * 

21 " Naturforschung und Bibel," Freiburg, 1877, p- 272. 

22 " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., p. 210 seq. 

23 " vStory of the Earth and Man," p. 290 seq. 



4/0 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE, 

But we find opinions in favor of the non-universality 
of the Deluge in Christian antiquity also. As adherents 
of this view we count the ancient ecclesiastical writers 
who held the opinion that Paradise was left untouched 
by the Flood. Some excepted certain high mountain 
summits; for instance, during St. Augustine's time such 
an exception was claimed for Mt. Olympus. But as they 
based their claims upon physical objections, the holy 
doctor was perfectly right when , according to the estimate 
of physical science in his time, he tried to refute these 
objections by pointing to the omnipotence of God. J Later, 
Cardinal Cajetan interpreted Genesis by suggesting that 
by " all the high mountains under the whole heaven " were 
understood only the mountains under the cloudy region. 
The interpreters, mentioned by the pseudo-Justin, 2 who 
taught that the Deluge extended only to " the part of 
the earth inhabited by men," were not on such firm 
ground. Theodore of Mopsuestia favored only a partial 
deluge, and the Irish pseudo- Augustine, in the second 
half of the seventh century, without exactly adopting this 
view, calls its defenders learned and ingenious scholars. 2 
An error in the figures of the Septuagint leads to the 
result that Mathusala died fourteen years after the 
Deluge, and there were commentators who, basing their 
view on the Septuagint, admitted that Mathusala may 
really have survived the Deluge; this would do away 
with the universality of the Deluge, even for the whole 
of mankind, and is against what St. Peter tells 
us, i Peter ii. 20. Of course this solution of the 
difficulty was erroneous, but it proves, like the pre- 
ceding interpretations, that it was not believed nec- 

1 " De Civ. Dei," lib. xv.. c. 27. 

2 " Quaestiones ad Orthodoxos," 9, 34. P- 412, edition Otto, iii., 

248. 

3 " De Mirabilibus Scripturae Sacrae." 



THE DELUGE A PARTIAL INUNDATION. 47 1 

essary to maintain the absolute universality of the 
Deluge. 

The doctrine of the non-universality of the Deluge 
came more into favor during the so-called Reformation. 
In 1659 the Protestant Isaac Vossius, in his " Dissertatio 
de Vera Mundi JEtate" expressed the opinion that the 
Deluge was not universal over the earth. At first Vos- 
sius met with great opposition within his own camp, but 
soon several of his co-religionists adopted his opinion ; 
forinstance, Stillingfleet (1663), Polus (1669), and others,' 
in recent times nominal Protestants have taken the 
same view: Pfaff, Nagelsbach, Delitzsch, Zollmann, etc. 
On account of this opinion in connection with other 
doctrinal views, the book of Vossius was placed on the 
Index, and the Roman Congregation of the Index asked 
the famous Maurine Father Mabillon J for an opinion 
concerning Vossius' hypothesis. After having carefully 
examined the arguments for and against the universality 
of the Deluge, Mabillon, in 1686, gave it as his view 
that the opinion denying that the waters of the Deluge 
covered the whole earth was neither against faith nor 
against morals. "My opinion," he says in conclusion, 
' is that the interpretation of Vossius and others may be 
tolerated without any danger." 2 

Thus, in spite of contrary appearances, this second 
system is not in contradiction with the Sacred Text. It 
is a rule of hermeneutics, admitted by all interpreters of 
Holy Scripture, that m order to determine the sense of 
a passage the epoch when it was written must be con- 
sidered, and that it must be understood as the author 
and those whom he addressed understood it. 

338. We may Hold that the Deluge was a 
Partial Inundation.— The exegetist is therefore at 

1 " CEuvres Posthumes," Paris, 1728, vol. ii., p. 60 seq. 

2 Cf. " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," vol. xvi., p. 162 seq. 



472 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

liberty to hold that the Deluge was a partial inundation 
of the earth's surface; for neither the aim of the Flood 
as expressed in Genesis nor the text of the Biblical ac- 
count forces us to maintain the universality of the Del- 
uge as to the whole earth. 

339. Purpose of the Deluge. — The purpose of the 
divine judgment is stated to be the punishment of man : 
" And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great 
on the earth, and that all thought of their heart was 
bent upon evil at all times, it repented Him that He 
had made man on the earth. And being touched in- 
wardly with sorrow of heart, He said: I will destroy 
man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth." ! 
The purpose of the Deluge, therefore, is the punishment 
of men ; on them judgment is executed ; it is directed 
against them. This causal relation between the destruc- 
tion of men and the devastation of the earth is clearly 
expressed in the words of the Lord : " The end of all 
flesh is come before Me ; the earth is filled with iniquity 
through them, and I will destroy them with the earth." 
But now suppose — and who would find such a suppo- 
sition inadmissible? — a considerable part of the earth's 
surface, perhaps entire continents, was not inhabited by 
any human being at the time of the Deluge. 3 Was it 
necessary for the complete attainment of the end indi- 
cated to bring on a simultaneous inundation of the entire 
surface of the earth? 

340. The Letter of the Biblical Account does 
not Teach that the Deluge was Universal. — 
However, the letter of the Bible does not say that the 
Deluge was universal. But does not Holy Scripture say 
clearly that "the whole earth " should be inundated, that 

1 Gen. vi. 5. " ^-. vi. 13. 

3 " When the great catastrophe took place, the whole earth was 
not peopled," says Pianciani. 



THE BIBLE AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE. 473 

" all the high mountains under the whole heaven " should 
be put under water? ' 

We are not obliged, says Reusch, to take the expres- 
sion " all the high mountains under the whole heaven ' 
in a strictly literal sense, because similar expressions 
occur elsewhere in Holy Scripture where they cannot be 
taken literally. For instance, God says in Deuteronomy 
to the people of Israel : " This day will I begin to send the 
dread and the fear of thee upon the nations that dwell 
under the whole heaven ; and when they hear thy name 
they may fear and tremble, and be in pain like a woman 
in travail." 2 Of course this does not speak of all the 
peoples of the earth absolutely. In the same way, 
only the countries with which the Egyptians came 
into contact are meant when it is said in the history 
of Joseph that there was famine "in all the lands," 
or, "the famine prevailed in the whole world," and that 
"all provinces" came to Egypt in order to buy corn. 3 
According to the account of the Book of Kings, "King 
Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches 
and wisdom. And all the earth desired to see Solomon's 
face, to hear his wisdom, which God had given in his 
v heart." 4 We must not take this geographical statement 
literally, any more than the saying of Our Saviour, that 
the Queen of Saba " came from the ends of the earth ' 
to hear the wisdom of Solomon.' It is said in the Acts 
that at the time of the descent of the Holy Ghost there 
were people " out of every nation under heaven " dwell- 
ing at Jerusalem. I know no exegetist, continues 
Reusch, who would suppose that Chinese and New Zea- 
landers were there. In the same way we may under- 
stand the expression, "all the high mountains under 

1 Cf. " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," vol. xvi., pp. 34, 35. 

' 2 Deut. ii. 25. 3 Gen. xli. 54-57. 

4 in. Kings x. 23, 24. s Matt. xii. 42. 6 Acts ii. 5. 



474 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

the whole heaven," so as not to include the mountains 
which lay outside of Noe's horizon, 1 such as Chimborazo 
or Dhawalagiri. 2 We find analogous expressions in St. 
Paul ; for instance, when he says that the faith of the 
converts at Rome was spoken of "throughout the 
world," ' he could not have meant the whole globe, but 
only the Roman Empire. And would any one think of 
taking in the modern geographical sense his declaration 
that at the time he wrote to the Colossians the Gospel 
had been preached to every creature under heaven ? 4 

Pianciani says : " The general statements and the word 
'col,' omnis, which occurs repeatedly in the history of 
the Deluge, must not and cannot be taken literally in the 
language of the sacred writers, and especially of Moses. 
. . . We are not unjust to Noe, I think, and his sons, or 
to the deliverer of Israel, if we assume that, like their 
contemporaries and later generations, they knew nothing 
of the existence of America or Australia; that they had 
no knowledge and no idea of the species of animals 
peculiar to those lands, and to distant parts of the Old 
World — for instance, the Cape of Good Hope ; and that 
they knew no more of geography and zoology than did 
Aristotle, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Pliny. If this is 
so, Noe and his family might speak in their narrative, 
and Moses in his record of this great event, of the 'whole 
earth, of all the animals, of the high mountains which 
were under the whole heaven ; ' and yet we may perhaps 
understand these expressions to refer to those portions 
of the earth's surface, to the animals and mountains, 
which were more or less known to them. . . . We revere 
Moses as an inspired writer, but Ave find even in the 
inspired writers hyperbolical statements, and words 

1 " The Hebrews were ignorant of the existence of the two hem- 
ispheres."- — Vigouroux, op. cit., 529. 

2 Reusch, op. cit.. pp. 289, 290. 3 Rom. i. 8. 4 Col. i. 23. 



IN WHAT SENSE THE DELUGE WAS UNIVERSAL. 475 

which must not be understood in their most obvious 
and most comprehensive sense; and we believe that 
they were silent about many things, and did not know 
many other things, which were not necessary for the 
(religious) teaching of others. God left the Biblical 
writers in ignorance of much which it was interesting, 
but not necessary or useful, to know. He also allowed 
them to make use of expressions in their writings of 
which the most obvious sense is not always that which 
is confirmed by the context, or by a comparison of par- 
allel passages, 1 or by the progress of human knowledge, 
which last sometimes furnishes an approximate and 
necessary commentary on the words of Holy Scripture, 
where the sense is not explained by the infallible expo- 
sition of revelation." 2 

341. In what Sense the Deluge was Univer- 
sal. — Thus the account of Genesis does not oblige 
us to assume that the Deluge was universal in the sense 
that all the mountains on the earth were covered with 
water. The Flood no doubt was universal, but in an- 
other sense. Genesis repeatedly and distinctly asserts 
that all mankind, with the exception of the eight who 
were in the ark, was destroyed. God points this out as 
the real object of the Deluge, and it is repeatedly said 
that this object was attained, for the last time, at the 
end of the narrative, in these words: " These are the 
three sons of Noe : and from these was all mankind 
spread over the whole earth." 3 " By these were the 
nations divided on the earth after the Flood." 4 

' The word translated 'earth,' " says Geikie, " in our English 
version has not only the meaning of the world as a whole, but 
others much more limited. Thus it often stands for Palestine 
alone (Joel i. 2; Ps. xxxvi. 11, 22, 29; xliv. 3; Prov. ii. 21; 
x. 30), and even for the small district round a town (Jos. viii. 
1), or a field or plot of land (Gen. xxiii. 15; Exod. xxiii. 10)." 
Cf. " Hours with the Bible," vol. i., p. 219. 

2 Pianciani, op. cit., pp. 543-545. J Gen. ix. 19. 4 lb., x. 32. 



476 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

The terms employed by Genesis in the account of the 
Deluge refer, therefore, only to the earth known at the 
time of Noe and the Hebrews — to the mountains 
which they had seen, to the animals which were familiar 
to them and of which they had heard. Consequently, 
nothing obliges us to assume that the highest summits 
of the Himalaya, the volcanoes of Central and South 
America, and the mountains of the interior of Africa 
were covered by the waters, because the ancients did 
not know them. All the mountains Noe and Moses 
knew were inundated. 1 

342. It is not Necessary to Hold that the Ark 
Landed on the Highest Peak of Ararat. — If by 
the statement that the ark landed on Ararat we are to 
understand that the highest summit of Ararat in Ar- 
menia was covered with water, the Flood must have 
been very great; for the summit of Ararat is 16,000 feet 
above the level of the sea. Even if, as some suppose, 
some lower mountain in Armenia was the landing-place 
of the ark, a flood which spread over the Armenian 
highlands must have been of a very great extent. Pian- 
ciani says : " It is not necessary to assume that the ark 
•landed on the highest peak of Ararat. It may have 
rested in a valley between the peaks." 2 

343. Did the P'lood Last More than a Year? — 
But there is another question to be examined. May 
we assume that the changes caused by the Deluge on 
other points of the earth lasted more than a year? 
Father Hummelauer answers as follows: "Even if 
we do not take the Flood described in Genesis as 
universal, nevertheless we need not conceive it as a 
local inundation, such as a lasting inundation of the 

1 Cf. Nicolai and Pianciani, " Cosmogonia" in the " Civilta 
Cattolica," July, 1862, pp. 316, 317; Reusch, op. cit., p. 391. 

2 Pianciani, " Cosmogonia," p. 538. 



DID THE FLOOD LAST MORE THAN A YEAR? 477 

Mesopotamian lowlands, caused by an extraordinary 
swelling of the twin streams, the Euphrates and Tigris. 
For the statement that the waters reached 45 feet 
above the summit of the 'mountains of Ararat, 5 
whether we understand the great Ararat itself, or 
Armenia in general, or the mountains of Kurdistan, 
shows that the flood was much more extended. With- 
out the most powerful commotions and changes of 
the earth's surface, without extensive elevations and 
depressions of continents and ocean beds, events like 
those described in Genesis, apparently by an eye- 
witness, are simply inconceivable. A sudden sinking 
of the land, which was formerly, perhaps, less ele- 
vated above the level of the sea than at present, explains 
best the rushing in of the ocean over the continent, and 
this was followed by an elevation of the land after the 
flowing off of the waters and the drying of the ground. 
But could such an event take place in Western Asia 
without affecting the whole earth ? Therefore men have 
not been wanting in our time who believed that the 
immense changes of level that took place toward the 
end of the glacial age were caused by the Biblical 
Deluge. According to them, the convulsions in the 
Armenian mountain chains are only an isolated section 
of the great change on our planet the traces of which 
we can pursue in the recent elevations of the Alps and 
Himalaya, in the unfettering of the volcanic powers on 
so many other points of the earth, in the laying dry of the 
Sahara ocean, the Aral and Caspian seas, and the inner 
Asiatic ocean, as also the lower Rhenish plain; in the 
separation of the Malay island world, and also, perhaps, 
the sinking of Atlantis. 

: The question whether and how far the above events 
were really connected with the Biblical Deluge may never 
be answered. However, supposing the reality of this 



47 8 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

connection, must we assume that the Flood, with all its 
consequences, was over within the space of one year? 
The Sacred Text does not support any other suppo- 
sition ; but it is possible that the catastrophe in Western 
Asia was only the first shock which was followed 
by other shocks on other parts of the globe; it is 
possible that in some localities shocks had preceded 
that in Asia. In any case, the drying of the low- 
lands must have progressed much more slowly than 
that of the 'mountains of Ararat.' Centuries may 
have elapsed before the last scene of the oscillating 
terrestrial drama found its conclusion. This suggests 
the possibility of a final reconciliation between the older 
hypothesis of Cuvier, who ascribed the whole diluvium 
to the Deluge, and the more recent view of Sedgwick 
and Buckland, who questioned the simultaneousness of 
the different diluvial layers ; between the older concep- 
tion of the Deluge as a catastrophe which extended over 
the whole earth and the more modern view which 
accepts only a local inundation. If we admit this view, 
then certainly the Deluge, in the widest sense of the 
word, that is, in so far as it embraced the above-men- 
tioned changes of the earth's surface, extended over the 
whole earth and was, therefore, in a certain sense, uni- 
versal, even as regards our globe; while, on the other 
hand, in the narrower sense, we may also call it local — 
that is, an inundation of the locality mentioned by the 
Bible. We must ascribe, at least in part, the formation 
of the diluvium to the Deluge ; but this would diminish 
very considerably the age of the various diluvial depos- 
its ; thus almost complete harmony would be estab- 
lished between the Bible and science, and full libertv 
would be secured to science." l Let us hope to see the 
day when this harmonious view will prevail. 

1 " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," vol. xvi., pp. 43-45. 



universality of the deluge and mankind. 479 

344. Third System: The Deluge did not Cause 
the Death of All Men except Noe and His 
Family. — We must be careful not to confound the sec- 
ond system just explained with the third one, which 
denies the universality of the Deluge for the human 
species, and excepts certain branches, as the Mongolians 
and Ethiopians, from destruction by the Flood. In other 
words, this opinion asserts that the Deluge need not be 
regarded as a universal one, in the sense that all man- 
kind, with the exception of Noe and his family, was 
destroyed ; but that only the inhabitants of the coun- 
tries known to Noe perished ; so that certain Mongolian 
and Ethiopian tribes, which had already separated from 
the mass of mankind which inhabited Asia and had 
become strangers to Noe and his family, were not 
affected by the Deluge. 

345. On what this Theory is Based. — This the- 
ory is based on the belief that before the Deluge man- 
kind had already spread over a great portion of the earth. 
On the contrary, the view that all men, except Noe 
and his family, were destroyed by the Flood, supposes 
that only a part of Asia was peopled. Genesis does not 
contain any information about the dispersion of man- 
kind before the Deluge, and neither geological nor 
historical investigations have produced satisfactory in- 
formation upon this point. 

346. Can this View be Maintained? — Cuvier, Qua- 
trefages, Schoebel, and the Abbe Motais maintain 
this opinion. Omalius of Halloy, a Belgian savant, also 
taught it in 1866, in his " Discourse to the Class of Sci- 
ences" at the Belgian Academy. 1 Professor Scholz, of 
Wurzburg, did the same. What are we to think of this 

1 P. Bellynck, a Belgian Jesuit, without positively adopting the 
view of Omalius, considers his opinion tenable. — " Etudes Re- 
ligieuses," vol. i., 1868, p. 578. 



480 GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. 

opinion? We have seen that, according to Genesis, 
God caused the annihilation of all the descendants of 
Adam, whose genealogy it gives us, because they had 
all become corrupt; and St. Peter in his two Epistles 
expressly says: "In the ark (of Noe) few, eight souls, 
were saved by water." 1 "God preserved Noe, the 
eighth person, the preacher of justice." 2 The unani- 
mous tradition of the Fathers, and the universal teach- 
ing of the theologians, interpret these words of St. 
Peter in the sense that only eight persons were saved 
— that is, Noe, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. 
No sufficient reason is given for departing from the 
interpretation accepted by the Church until at pres- 
ent. The formation of the various human races, and 
the numerous languages spoken upon earth in dim 
antiquity, the progress civilization had made long before 
Abraham, we are told, are so many proofs that some 
races escaped the Deluge and preserved their character- 
istic features, language, and arts. The supporters of 
this opinion suppose that a relatively short time elapsed 
between the Deluge and Abraham ; but when treating 
on Biblical chronology we saw that very probably this 
time is longer than was generally believed. However, 
in our next chapter we shall meet this objection. 

1 1. Peter iii. 20. 2 II. Peter ii. 5. 



CHAPTER XVI. 
CAUSES OF THE DELUGE.-ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS. 

Why natural science cannot bring serious objections against the 
Deluge.— Linguistic and zoological objections.— Size of the 
ark and number of animal species. — Experiments. —Re- 
peopling of the earth by animals. — Causes of the Del- 
uge.— Torrential rains.— Invasion of seas.— Subterraneous 
fountains.— Upheavals and depressions.— Combination of 
the different systems.— Conclusion. 

347- The Opinion that the Deluge was Re- 
stricted to the Inhabited Earth Disposes of Many 
Difficulties.— If we hold that the Deluge was restrict- 
ed to the inhabited part of the earth, most of the diffi- 
culties alleged against the Mosaic account disappear. 
Pfaff says : " The discussions on the Deluge have be- 
come useless, because theologians admit that the narra- 
tive of Genesis may signify, not that all the mountains on 
the surface of the globe were simultaneously inundated, 
but that all mankind was annihilated by a mass of water! 
This admission means that the Deluge was a partial sub- 
mersion of the globe. The learned have no objections 
to make against the Deluge thus explained ; it is impos- 
sible for them to prove that a partial flood, whose 
occurrence, in fact, is affirmed by the traditions of 
almost all the nations, could not have taken place, or 
did not really take place." J 

348. Objection Against the Opinion that the 
Deluge Covered the Inhabited Earth.— Thus the 
physical and natural sciences have no serious arguments 
1 Pfaff, " Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 750. 

3 1 4 8r 



4 g 2 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

against the reality of the Biblical Deluge. The objec- 
tions brought forward in the name of ethnology and 
linguistics are not convincing. It is impossible, we 
are told, that all men, except the family of Noe, were 
destroyed in the great inundation related in Genesis, 
because as far back as our investigations go, we find 
the races of men such as we know them, the lan- 
guages that they speak already existing. But if all 
men now living upon earth are descended from Noe, 
we must admit that these races and languages are pos- 
terior to the Deluge, which in fact is inadmissible. 

"But why inadmissible?" asks Vigouroux. "The 
difficulty is a chronological and not a scientific one; 
the question is, At what epoch did the Deluge take 
place? If it occurred at a time remote enough for 
the descendants of Noe to transform themselves— 
some into negroes, others into Mongolians or Redskins, 
etc. ; if the number of centuries was sufficient for the 
language of primitive man to split up into several 
tongues, as happens in our days, the difficulty falls to 
the ground. These changes could take place since the 
Deluge as well as since the creation. We saw when 
discussing Biblical chronology that we do not know the 
date when God punished mankind by this terrible chas- 
tisement, and we have shown that we can put back its 
date as much as the historical and archaeological sciences 
require. These, therefore, cannot bring any serious 
argument against the Mosaic account." ' 

"349. How Could Noe Gather Foreign Animals 
into the ARK?— The most serious difficulty raised 
against the old interpretation of the account of the 
Deluge is that which zoologists make. " Every beast 
according to its kind," says Genesis, 2 "and all the cattle 

1 " Les Livres Saints," etc., vol. iii., p. 499- 

2 Gen. vii. 14. i5« 



FOREIGN ANIMALS IN THE ARK. 483 

in their kind, and everything that moveth upon the 
earth according to its kind ; and every fowl according 
to its kind, all birds and all that fly, went in to Noe 
into the ark, two and two of all flesh." 

This passage was understood to refer to all animals, 
known and unknown, 1 instead of referring only to the 
animals known at the time of the Deluge. Thus, it 
becomes very difficult to explain, without multiplying 
miracles, how Noe could gather into the ark animals 
which were separated from him by the immense ocean, 
and how animals living, perhaps, on islands could return 
there after the inundation. 

The Deluge being, according to the Bible, a pun- 
ishment for the sins of mankind, it follows that all 
men should perish in order to atone for their sins; 
but this was not true of the animals; hence there 
was no reason why they also should perish. Thus 
we must admit the universality of the Deluge for the 
human species, the Mongolian .and Ethiopian tribes 
included; but nothing proves that we must admit its 
universality for the animals, any more than for the ter- 
restrial globe. And just as it is conformable to the rules 
of good criticism to understand by the "whole earth" 
the earth known at the time, it is equally correct to 
understand by "all the animals " only those which were 
known to Noe and Moses. Pianciani says: 

"It does not necessarily follow from the fact that 
human sinfulness was the moral cause of the Deluge 
that the part of the animal world which inhabited the 
1 However, even long ago interpreters excepted some ani- 
mals, for instance, St. Augustine (" De Civitate Dei,"l. xv., 
c. xxvii., 4, vol. xli., col. 475). "In arcam." says Cornelius a' 
Lapide, who with the ancients admitted spontaneous genera- 
tion, " non sunt inducta animalia quas ex putrefactione, uti 
mures, vermes, apes, scorpiones . . . nascuntur.*'— In Gen.' vi. 
19; "Cursus Completus Scriptures Sacras," vol. v., col. 275. 



484 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

countries then unknown to man must have been spared 
by the Deluge. But we may gather therefrom that it is 
impossible to argue from animals to man, and vice versa; 
and that because all men died who were not in the ark, 
it does not necessarily follow that all animals died like- 
wise ; while, on the other hand, if it were proved that 
certain kinds of animals survived the Deluge, it would 
not follow that any man had been saved. Lastly, it 
must be noted that in the ten chapters of Genesis which 
follow the first, Moses tells the history of mankind, and 
not of the animal world; and that he nowhere says that 
all existing kinds of animals spread over the earth are 
descended from the animals which came out of the ark." 

350. Only Those Animals Perished that were 
Known to Noe. — Hence we may admit that only 
those animals perished which were known to Noe and 
Moses. Those which Noe did not know did not exist 
for him. We have no reason to suppose that God revealed 
supernaturally to Noe the existence of animals which 
he never had occasion to see, and of which he had never 
heard. Neither does anything prove that God ordered 
him to gather others than those which lived in his own 

country. 

" Noe was not commanded to do anything impossible, 
and he did no more than he could. If the command to 
assemble all the animals had been given to one possessed 
of much greater resources than Noe — for instance, to 
Alexander the Great, or Augustus — he would no doubt 
have collected together the most comprehensive menag- 
erie that had ever been seen ; and yet all the animals 
then unknown in Europe, and existing only in America 
and Australia, would have been wanting. Is Noe's 
collection likely to have been more complete?" 

'Pianciani, " Civilta Cattolica," September, 1862, p. 34. 
2 Pianciani, op. cit, October, 1862, p. 293. 



THE ARK OF SUFFICIENT SIZE. 485 

It is evident that if God had wished, nothing would 
liave been easier for Him than to assemble in the ark, 
by supernatural means, all the existing animal species ; 
but, as Pianciani remarks, we must not multiply mira- 
cles without reason. As the animals which lived in 
regions not inhabited by man were thereby saved from 
the Deluge, and had no need of taking refuge in the ark 
in order to be saved, nothing obliges us to suppose that 
they entered therein. 

It has been asserted quite seriously, even by men of 
science, that after the Deluge all living things went 
forth from Ararat and peopled the whole earth. In the 
time of Moses such an assertion was justifiable (al- 
though Moses does not make it) , and we do not dispute 
its truth according to the knowledge of that age. All 
animals which were then known to the Jews, and in 
which they were interested, may have spread from 
Ararat. * 

351. If the Deluge be Restricted to the Inhab- 
ited Earth, the Ark was of Sufficient Size. 

The hypothesis we have set forth at the same time 
meets the difficulties raised against the possibility of 
enclosing all species of animals in so small a vessel as 
the ark. The ark, it was shown, could contain with- 
out excessive inconvenience all the species of animals 
known of old. Since the discovery of so many new 
species in America, the question has been more difficult, 
and a vessel of the dimensions of the ark would hardly 
suffice to contain all animals on the earth. 2 But the 

1 Geibel, " Tagesfragen," p. 72. 

! It is supposed that the ark was a vessel of 80,000 tons bur- 
then. The most ancient book known treating on the number of 
animal species is the " Pirke of Rabbi Eleezer." This author 
makes Noe bring into the ark 32 species of birds and 365 of 
other animals. Johnston in his "Physical Atlas" (1856) gives 



486 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

difficulty vanishes if Noe assembled only the animals 
which were known to him. 

In that case, the ark was able to fulfil the purpose for 
which it was constructed, and large enough to hold the 
family of Noe and the animals destined to be saved from 
the cataclysm. .Experiment has proved this. In the 
year 1604 a Dutch Anabaptist, Peter Jensen, built a ship 
according to the proportions and form of the ark. It 
was not suitable for navigation, but it could contain one 
third more than the cargo which could be put into a 
boat of the ordinary form and of the same cubic capacity. 

352. Another Objection Met by the Hypothesis 
of a Deluge Restricted to the Inhabited Earth. 

Another objection raised by naturalists falls to the 

ground, if we admit that the Deluge did not destroy all 
animals. How could the animals contained in the ark 
spread all over the earth? they say. How could the 
mammalia overcome the difficulties they must encounter 
by land and sea to reach the furthest regions? 

Pianciani answers this objection as follows: 'It is 
not likely that whole species of land animals crossed the 
Atlantic, or any other ocean, for the pleasure of settling 
in America. Certainly the men that first peopled 
America and Australia and did not take with them cat- 
tle and horses, would not take to the new continent a 
fauna which is quite different from that of our continent. 
Neither is it likely that so many animals that are not 
found in the Old World travelled over icebergs to the 
warmer regions in the New World; although in the 
north the reindeer and polar bear, etc., could have 
passed in this way from one country to another." 

1,658 species of mammalia; Lessen admits 6,266 species of birds; 
Ch. Bonaparte, 642 species of reptiles ; Sir John Lubbock states 
that the total of all species of animals surpasses the enormous 
figure of 700,000. ' " Cosmogonia," p. 556. 



THE DELUGE AND THE INHABITED EARTH. 487 

Linnaeus believed that all animals had started from 
one centre, but to-day naturalists teach that each con- 
tinent has more or less its peculiar fauna. Cuvier 
has remarked that when the Spaniards first pene- 
trated into South America they did not meet there 
a single species of quadrupeds found in Europe, 
Asia, and Africa: the jaguar, the tapir, all the monkeys, 
etc., were animals unknown to the Spaniards. New 
Holland and the neighboring islands also had ani- 
mals unknown to the first European settlers — such as 
kangaroos, ornithorhynchi, etc. New Zealand, which 
appears to possess no indigenous mammal except a 
species of rat, has very many species of birds which 
are proper to it. These countries which are peopled by 
a peculiar fauna to-day, have also a fossil fauna altogether 
different from ours. The kangaroos of Australia, for 
instance, had as predecessors kangaroos twice as large 
as the largest of to-day. 1 

Hugh Miller tells us that many animals are confined 
to certain places. This is especially true of the fauna 
of Australia; for example, its quadrupeds of all kinds, 
strange to say, are marsupials — that is, provided with 
a pouch in which to carry their young. The fossil 
remains of the great island continent show, moreover, 
that existing species are the direct descendants of simi- 
lar races of extreme antiquity, and that the surface of 
Australia is the oldest land of any considerable extent 
so far discovered on the globe. It dates back to the 
tertiary geological age at least; since then it has not 
been disturbed to any great extent. But this carries us 
to a period immensely more remote than Noe. 

Nothing forbids our admitting that the animals known 
to the Hebrews could spread from Mount Ararat to other 
Biblical lands ; but that they scattered into other coun- 
1 Hugh Miller, " Testimonies of the Rocks," p. 332 seq. 



488 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

tries beyond seas and oceans can hardly be main- 
tained. 

353. Causes of the Deluge and Answers to Ob- 
jections. — In regard to the causes of the Flood, 
difficulties were advanced in the name of natural 
philosophy which appeared very serious to some 
savants. Those who tried to explain the manner in 
which this terrible phenomenon took place were unable 
to arrive at an agreement among themselves. 1. Some 
attributed it to immense torrential rains, and alleged 
the words of Scripture, " The flood-gates of heaven were 
opened." 2. Others attributed the Deluge to an inva- 
sion of the seas, and appealed to the words, "All the 
fountains of the deep were broken up." 1 3. A third 
opinion supposes an elevation of the surface of the globe, 
which destroyed the equilibrium of the waters, and thus 
brought on the inundations of the continents. 4. Fi- 
nally, some hold that all these causes, or at least the 
first two, acted simultaneously. We know of no expla- 
nations except those we have enumerated. But these 
give rise to difficulties. 

354. (1) Explanation of the Deluge by Torren- 
tial Rains. — Nothing is easier than to quote numerous 
examples of rains the abundance and duration of which 
caused considerable inundations. But supposing that 
the most violent torrential rain of which we have any 
record lasted for forty days, we should have a layer of 
water only 2 ,400 feet in depth ; but the peaks of the Him- 
alaya have a height of 27,520 feet. Again, assuming 
that such a rain fell over the whole world, it is said that 
the physical laws governing the world do not allow 
a simultaneous submersion of the two hemispheres. 
To produce such a rainfall, a sudden, simultaneous, 
and considerable fall in the temperature of the atmos- 

1 Gen. vii. 11. Compare Gen. viii. 2. 



EXPLANATION OF THE DELUGE. 489 

phere must take place, which the present state of the 
atmosphere would not permit. Rain falls when the 
humid air, having cooled, can no longer keep in an 
invisible, vaporous state all the water with which it 
is charged. The excess of water turns into vapor, 
forming clouds and fogs, or into drops which form rain. 
The air cools either by mingling with cooler air or by 
contact with cooler parts of the globe, or, finally, by 
dilation due to diminution of pressure, which in a 
manner determines atmospheric movements. These 
phenomena are necessarily local, and generally counter- 
balanced by contrary phenomena in other parts of the 
atmosphere ; it is, therefore, impossible that rain should 
fall simultaneously over the whole earth, especially with 
a violence sufficient to bring on a deluge like that 
described in Genesis. 

In reply we may say with Dr. Reusch, that what is 
impossible after the Deluge may have been possible 
when the Deluge took place ; but such an answer does 
not remove the difficulties. A- change in the essential 
laws governing the atmosphere that surrounds our globe 

supposes a change in the conditions of life upon earth 

a change of which Ave do not discover any trace in the 
organisms of living beings. 

Moreover, the entire mass of water which fell during 
the forty days' rain must have been suspended in the 
atmosphere before the beginning of the torrential rain 
or precipitate ; for during the general rain a supply of 
water vapor could not rise from the ocean. Hence, be- 
fore the rain an atmospheric pressure five and one-half 
times greater than normal would have lain on men and 
animals. After the rain this must have been removed 
and replaced by the normal atmospheric pressure. 
Furthermore, it would follow that formerly organic 
beings must have been accustomed to greater atmos- 



490 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

pheric pressure, or this pressure must have been tem- 
porarily lessened before and during the Flood. But 
whoever, while ascending a high mountain or witness- 
ing experiments with a diving-bell, has noticed the nox- 
ious effects a relatively insignificant diminution or 
increase of pressure has on man and beast, will hesitate 
to admit these hypotheses. 1 In that case, the preserva- 
tion of the men and animals in the ark can be explained 
only by a miraculous change in their organisms — an 
assumption, however, which contradicts empirical in- 
quiry and finds no support in the words of the Bible. 
The same men and animals that went into the ark also 
went forth from the same. 2 Thus the explanation by 
torrential rains causes difficulties which seem insoluble. 

355. (2) Explanation of the Deluge by an Inva- 
sion of the Seas.— If, on the other hand, we ascribe the 
Delude to an inundation of the seas and the bursting 
forth of subterranean springs we are face to face with 
difficulties of another kind. 

" If we assume that no country, island, or mountain 
was left untouched by the Flood, and that the water 
stood 45 feet deep not only on all the mountains of 
Armenia, but also on all the great heights of Asia and 
America, it is very difficult to find a satisfactory answer 
to the question, 'Whence did so much water come?' 
We may unhesitatingly admit that subterranean waters 
burst forth, but will that suffice? May we assume that 
enormous stores of water existed, in subterranean cav- 
erns, when we know that the mean specific gravity at 
the centre of the earth is much greater than that of the 
portion of the earth's crust known to us, and perhaps 
seven times greater than that of water? It is, of course, 
possible to assume that more water was created by God, 

1 Cf. Pfaff, op. cit., p. 651. 

2 Guttler, " Naturforschung und Bibel," p. 267. 



INVASION OF THE SEAS. 49 1 

and was afterward destroyed again, or that the water 
came from regions beyond our atmosphere and returned 
whence it came. These things certainly do not exceed 
the almighty power of the Creator, but I do not know 
how far they are in harmony with His wisdom and His 
usual mode of working ; and these assumptions would 
involve a risk of exposing the work of God to the ridi- 
cule of men of science, which, as St. Augustine and St. 
Thomas have observed, should be avoided as much as 
possible." ' 

Without even taking into account the fissures and 
hollows which exist on the earth's surface, in order to 
completely inundate the earth a volume of water of 
depth equal to the height of the highest mountains 
would be needed — that is to say, of a depth of 27,000 
feet, the height of the peak of the Himalaya. Now, 
assuming that the quantity of water was not miracu- 
lously increased, the question arises whether there is on 
earth sufficient water to cause an inundation like the 
Deluge of Noe? We could answer this question in 
the affirmative if we assumed that God caused the Deluge 
by transferring the waters of the ocean to the continents, 
while the seas were dry. But such a suspension of the 
law of equilibrium is not probable. 2 

In the North Atlantic Ocean soundings have reached 
a depth of from 25,000 to 30,000 feet; in some cases the 
lead did not reach bottom at 40,000 feet. The Hima- 

1 Pianciani, op. cit., p. 551. 

' 2 " Dana calculates the mean depth of the sea at 15,000-20,000 
feet. Humboldt reckons the mean height of the land to be 1,000 
feet. If, therefore, we wished to fill up the sea with all the land, 
and equalize all the unevenness of the surface of the earth, the sea 
would not lose more than about 375 feet of its mean depth, all 
continents would have disappeared, and besides this, the water 
would stand about 15,000 feet over all the earth." — Frass, "Von 
der Simdfluth," p. 89. 



492 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

laya mountains, the highest in the world, could be buried 
at the bottom of the ocean, and our largest ships could 
float over their highest peaks without touching them. 

356. (3) Explanation of the Deluge by Upheavals 
and Depressions. — These explanations of the Deluge 
are therefore subject to grave dimculties from the 
point of view of the laws of physics. Equal dimculties 
are involved in the hypothesis of Leonhard and Hugh 
Miller, who seek to account for the Deluge by the rising 
of great mountains — for example, the chain of the Cor- 
dilleras — or by a profound depression of the soil. 

Of course these changes are only hypothetical. Gen- 
esis gives no account of them, because they do not come 
within the purview of its narrative; nor can we prove 
scientifically that they took place. But these hypoth- 
eses are welcome to Biblical scholars, as they make 
the narrative of Genesis more plausible. They may 
stand before the judgment-seat of natural science, if it 
can be proved that they do not go beyond anything 
that men of science have themselves admitted to be 
possible. We subjoin a few of these hypotheses. 

Klee 1 thinks it probable that the inclination of the 
earth's axis to the plane of its orbit was not always the 
same as it is now. If the axis round which the earth re- 
volves daily were at right angles to the plane of the orbit 
in which it revolves round the sun, there would be no 
alternation of the seasons; all parts of the earth would 
have equally long days and nights. The change of the 
seasons and the difference between the zones as they 
exist is caused by the fact that the axis of the earth 
varies 23^° from a horizontal position. If the axis had 
formerly been perpendicular to the plane of its orbit, 
or more upright than at present, the climatic conditions 
would have been materially different from what they 

'• " Der Urzustand der Erde." 



UPHEAVALS AND DEPRESSIONS. 493 

are now ; and if the change in the position of the axis 
had taken place suddenly, it might have sufficed to 
produce catastrophes as considerable as the Deluge. 
An English geologist is inclined to the belief that the 
earth was originally a ball, and received its present 
spheroidal shape by a sudden upheaval under the equa- 
tor. Of course we are dealing with mere suppositions, 

r 

for Genesis gives no account of them . But do they assist 
us to remove the difficulties? Hear what Pianciani says : 

" Moses mentions neither volcanoes, upheavals of 
mountains, nor settlements of the land, nor any other 
phenomena which may have preceded, accompanied, or 
followed the Deluge ; but he does not exclude the pos- 
sibility of any of these phenomena, and we may there- 
fore admit that they may have occurred without in any 
way contradicting his narrative. Perhaps these events 
took place in regions far from the dwelling-place of 
Noe's family. If at that time the great chain of the 
Andes was upheaved in America, Noe would hardly 
have known about it, and there is no apparent reason 
why God should have revealed physical events of this 
kind to Moses ; but even if we suppose that the sacred 
historian did know of them, there is still no reason why 
he should have recounted them." ' 

There is no doubt that such upheavals and depres- 
sions of parts of the earth's surface occurred in the past. 
Geologists are the last people to object to them ; for such 
upheavals and depressions play an important part in 
every system of geology. " We have many proofs, " says 
one, ' that important sinkings of the land took place at 
a comparatively recent epoch." 2 

According to Vogt, 3 a settlement of the land followed 



1 << 



3 « 



Civilta Cattolica," 1862, p. 519. 
De la Beche, " Manual of Geology," p. 172. 
Lehrbuch der Geologie," vol. i., p. 622. 



494 CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. 

the glacial period in the north of Europe and America, 
and the land subsequently rose again. According to 
the theory of the elevation of mountains which Elie de 
Beaumont first proposed, and which has been sup- 
ported by many modern geologists, it is assumed that 
the highest mountains are the most recent; the Cor- 
dilleras, one of the most extensive and highest moun- 
tain ranges, being perhaps the most recent of all. 1 
Burmeister 2 places the most violent and tremendous of 
these convulsions in the period immediately preceding 
the historical age. Even if they occurred singly and 
were of slight extent, could not such settlements 
and upheavals have taken place in historical times and 
caused inundations? The facts that in the year 1822, 
1,000 miles of the coast of Chili were raised four 
feet in one night by an earthquake, 3 and that in 18 19 
more than 90 geographical square miles of the delta 
of the Indus were turned into a lake by a settlement of 
the land following an earthquake, show that this is not 
impossible, and that important upheavals and settle- 
ments do still occur. * 

But whatever may be the value of these hypotheses for 
the purpose of explaining the causes of the Deluge, we 
must account for the presence of water on the land, and 
to do this we must have recourse to rain or to the sea. 

357. (4) Explanation of the Deluge by a Com- 
bination of the Different Systems. — Some scholars 
have attempted to explain the Deluge by the simultane- 
ous action of all the causes we have mentioned, but all 
the difficulties inherent to the three explanations already 
set forth evidently hold good against the fourth system. 

• " Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 265. 2 Ibid., p. 272. 

3 " Natiirliche Geschichte der Schopfung," p. 127. 

4 Mantell, "Wonders," vol. i„ p. 81; cf. Reusch, " Bibel und 
Natur," p. 311. 



by what means god produced the deluge. 495 

358. Conclusion: It is Impossible to Tell by 
what Means God Produced the Deluge. — Hence 
it is impossible to tell by what means God produced the 
Deluge, because He did not reveal it to us. But it 
matters very little whether we know it or not. It is 
sufficient to show that the laws of physics do not prove 
the impossibility of the great Flood as related by Moses. 
Nothing is easier than this if we assume — and we 
have proved that the teaching of the Church allows us 
to do so — that the Flood extended only to the inhab- 
ited earth. By this hypothesis all difficulties disappear. 
For the objections suppose that the waters covered the 
whole earth. If they covered only the part of our globe 
then peopled, man was exposed to no excess of atmos- 
pheric pressure, because rain was localized and did not 
fall in abnormal amount ; the rivers would not mingle 
their waters with the waters of the sea, and the fish 
would not perish, because part of the earth would 
remain undisturbed ; finally, so great a quantity of 
Avater would not be needed, and mankind could have 
been submerged by means of rain or water from the sea. 

Even on this supposition we do not know the means 
God made use of to inundate the inhabited earth. All 
we know from Genesis is, that rain was one of the prin- 
cipal, if not the only, means He employed. 1 We may 
admit that He caused the seas to overflow and new 
springs to burst forth, according to the explanation 
given by certain exegetists. 2 Finally, nothing is opposed 
to the hypothesis of some great revolution of nature, 
which, geology proves, took place, and which God used 
as a means to bring about the great cataclysm. 3 

1 Pianciani, " Civilta Cattolica," July 17, 1862, pp. 315-317. 

1 Gen. vii. 11. The word " thehom" employed by the Hebrew 
text may well mean the sea, and applies to the sea rather than 
to the atmosphere. 5 Cf. Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique," p. 537. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. THE EXISTENCE OF 

THE SOUL. 

Definitions. — Life. — Life-spring. — Soul. — Organisms. — Vegeta- 
tive, sensitive, and intellectual life. — The highest form 
of life, the soul, appears in man. — The essence of the 
principle of life. — What is an organism? — Without accept- 
ing a soul -principle, we cannot explain organisms. — Nature 
of the human soul.— Teachings of Holy Scripture. — Three 
steps in the creation of man. — The distinction between 
the body and the soul and the intimate union of the 
two clearly expressed in Holy Scripture. — Hebrew psychol- 
ogy. — Man's soul is not a complex of his corporal organs. — ■ 
Mental diseases prove nothing against the existence of the 
soul. — From corporal indications no certain conclusions can 
be drawn on the condition of the soul. 

From our anthropological studies we have learned 
that man differs essentially from animals, both in origin 
and history; he also differs from them in his nature: 
this will form the subject of our last investigation. 

359. What is Man? — The question "What is man?" 
surely deserves our fullest attention. The knowledge 
of God and correct self-knowledge have at all times 
been considered as the end of all wisdom. In pagan 
antiquity men's opinions of man were often enveloped 
in thick darkness, the result of false opinions and 
strong passions; however, the idea of man is so inti- 
mate to us that it was never wholly unknown. But it 
was only by Christianity that our full dignity was 
revealed to us. The Church always saw in man a being 
composed of two substances — a spiritual substance and 

a corporal substance ; she always distinguished the soul 

496 



WHAT IS LIFE ? 4 gy 

from the body. This is also the teaching of the Vatican 
Council, which, renewing a dogmatic declaration of the 
fourth council of the Lateran, has expressly defined that 
" God made from nothing both creatures, the spiritual 
and the corporal, the angelical and the material, and 
afterward man, formed by the union, so to say, of a 
body and of a spirit." ' 

These two substances, the spiritual and the corporal, 
so different from each other, God has joined together 
in man by a tie incomprehensible, but very visible and 
very real. Thus man is a mixed creature. For this 
reason the philosophic and spiritualistic school of the 
beginning of the present century, by defining man as 
"an intelligence provided with organs," fell into error; 
for this definition does not sufficiently express the way 
in which spirit and matter combine individually and 
equally to form man. It is best to adhere to the more 
ordinary definition, "Man is a reasonable animal;" for 
this expresses very clearly that man is a being 'com- 
pounded of a body and a soul, both of which form part 
of his essence. 

But before entering more into detail about the constit- 
uent elements of man, let us ask, What do we mean 
by a soul? 

360. What is Life?— The answer to this question 
becomes clearer when Ave ask, What is life? What do 
we call " alive " ? Life, being alive, generally speaking, 
is to move one's self, to be animated; life is the exist- 
ence of a being which develops an activity from within 
itself. In a more limited sense life is the sum of the 
activities of so-called organic bodies. These are so 
called because they consist of heterogeneous parts that 
serve as instruments (organs) of activity. Hettinger says : 2 

1 Constitution " Dei Films," cap. 1. 

2 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. i., 1, 336 seq. 
32 



498 MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. 

" What moves we call alive. Therefore to live means 
to move— that is, to move one's self from within, so that 
the thing moving and the thing moved are one and the 
same thing, in contradistinction to the motion which 
does not proceed from within, but is caused by an im- 
pulse from without. The living body moves itself; 
cause and effect meet in one and the same body. The 
animal, for instance, approaches its prey through the 
power dwelling within itself : in the same way it flees 
before its enemy ; while the motion of the stone through 
the air does not proceed from within itself, but from the 
hand that threw it; the animal, therefore, we call a 
living, the stone a dead, being." 

361. Three Kinds of Life.— We distinguish three 
kinds of instruments of activity, three kinds of life: (1) 
Vegetable (plant) life, with the functions of growth and 
nourishment (development and preservation of the indi- 
vidual) and reproduction (preservation of the species). 

(2) Animal life, which, besides the vegetative functions, 
includes also the functions of sensation, desire, and mo- 
tion. The life of the organism is conditioned by one 
combined, vivifying, moving power, or principle of life— 
life-spring— and ceases as soon as this power is separated 
from the organism; this separation we call " death." 

(3) Intellectual life, in which a spirit is the organic 

principle of life. 

" In the organism of plants this principle of life is 
bound absolutely to the organs themselves, operates 
through the organs and their chemico-physical constitu- 
ent parts, powers, and laws, and extends to the organism 
proper its nourishment, growth, and reproduction; how- 
ever, this principle stands above the power of matter, 
because it is active from within and makes use of its 
organs according to immanent aims and laws. After the 
vegetative life proceeding from it, we call this principle 



THE HIGHEST FORM OF LIFE APPEARS IN MAN. 499 

the vegetative (vegetable) soul. In animals the princi- 
ple of life, the life-spring, is tied to the corporal organ- 
ism, makes use of it, but does not operate merely 
through its corporal qualities ; its effect does not extend 
merely to its own body, as is the case in the plant, but 
also to sensible objects. This second principle of life 
we call a sensitive (animal) soul, because sensation and 
self-movement proceed from it." l 

362. The Highest Form of Life Appears in 
Man.— The highest form of life reveals itself in man 

m whom his spirit operates as the organic principle of 
life. 

A spirit is a simple, incorporeal, supersensible sub- 
stance, endowed with intellectual faculties (understand- 
ing, reason, and free will). From its simplicity follows 
its indestructibility and immortality. God is the highest 
most perfect spirit. The angels are called " pure spirits''' 
111 contradistinction to the human spirit, which, incor- 
poreal m itself, is nevertheless essentially united with 
a body into one nature; therefore we call the human 
spirit "soul." 

In man this spirit operates not only as the organic 
principle of life, but exercises, besides the vegetable 
and animal functions, the higher spiritual functions, as 
we have just observed. For this reason we distinguish 
in man a corporal (organic) and a spiritual life. While 
the principle of life in the plant and animal (vegetative 
animal soul) perishes with the separation of the organ- 
ism, the human soul, on the contrary, being a spirit 
continues to live after death, and continues to exercise 
the spiritual functions of life. 

"The highest form of life appears where the principle 
of life operates neither through a corporal organism nor 
through corporal qualities, but directly, and is active 
1 Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. i., 1, pp. 339 , 340 . 



5 00 MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. 

through itself alone; its action, therefore, extends not 
only to the sensible and perceptible, but to the entire 
domain of truth. This is the reasonable soul, which, 
essentially united to the body in man, besides the vege- 
table and sensitive functions, possesses the faculties of 
thinking and free-will. As the animal unites in it- 
sensitive soul also the vegetable principle of the plant, 
so the reasonable soul unites in itself the lower forms of 
life of both the plant and the animal. Man nourishes 
himself and grows like the plant, has the feeling and 
movement of the animal ; that which distinguishes him 
as man is the third form of life, proper to him— the life 
of intelligence and liberty proceeding from the self- 
conscious spirit. In consequence of this unity of the 
principle of life or soul in man we ascribe to the same 
subject different and opposite activities, because the 
various functions reside in one and the same principle ; on 
this account man's faculties influence each other; a vio- 
lent passion checks clear thinking, profound reflection 
removes or weakens the lower soul powers. For this rea- 
son both Holy Scripture and the Church call the souls of 
the departed merely ' souls,' because they were formerly 
united with the body as principle of its organism, and 
are destined to be re-united with it. The angels, on the 
contrary, we call 'spirits,' because the principle of 
their activity — consciousness and liberty — is not, as in 
man, at the same time the principle of growth and sense 
perception. So Holy Scripture speaks of animal souls 
whenever it wishes to designate the principle of animal 

life." 1 

363. The Essence of the Principle of Life.— 
Having shown that man has a soul or principle of life, it 
remains for us to learn what science teaches with regard 
to the essence of our soul. 

' Hettinger, " Apologie," vol. i., 1, pp. 34L 342. 



THE ESSENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFE. 501 

Many physiologists, especially those of the material- 
istic school, assert that life is nothing but the result of 
a combination of physico-chemical forces. In what this 
combination consists, how it works, and how it produces 
life, materialism does not know and cannot satisfactorily 
answer. What is the essence of the organic principle 
of life? In answering this question, Hettinger says: 
" In saying that man has a soul we ascribe to him 
a principle of activity which surpasses the powers of 
mere matter, and produces phenomena which cannot be 
explained by the physico-chemical qualities of the body. '" 
In other words, all organic life, be it human, animal, or 
vegetable, requires a life-spring, a soul, which stands 
like a new, higher creation above the powers of dead 
matter. And with this assertion we have touched the 
heart of materialism ; for this either stands or falls with 
the declaration, "The process of life, with all its func- 
tions and activities, is nothing but the result of mechan- 
ical and chemical processes, the product of matter, which 
produces life by a peculiar combination." "The soul," 
says Burmeister, " is a complex of faculties and forces 
which animal or human organisms reveal." 2 " If sci- 
ence were compelled," says Biichner, "to acknowledge 
a vital force, then the universality of natural laws and 
the unchangeableness of the mechanical order of the 
universe would break down ; we must admit that a higher 
hand has control of the laws of nature, and creates ex- 
ceptional laws which are not subject to calculation ; a 
rift would appear in the building of nature; science 
must despair of itself, and every natural and spiritual 
inquiry would cease;' 3 that is to say, materialism would 
be impossible. "But," continues Hettinger, "if we 

1 Op. cit. , p. 343 seq. 

2 Burmeister, " Geologische Bilder," vol. i., p. 251. 

3 Buchner, " Kraft und Stoff," p. 245. 



502 man's component elements. 

cannot explain the organic unity of the most simple 
vegetable organism by a mere 'mixture of matter,' 
but only by a new, higher principle, much less can 
we explain sensation and human thought without such 
a principle." 

364. What is an Organism? — And such a principle 
exists as a matter of fact. For what is an organism ? 
"We have compared organisms," says John Miiller, 
" with a system of parts united for a certain end, whose 
efficiency depends on the undisturbed harmony of the 
composing members. An organism is similar to a 
mechanical work of art in being a combination for the 
accomplishment of a certain end; but in the case of 
the organism it produces the mechanism of the organs in 
the germ and afterward reproduces it. The working 
of organic bodies does not depend on the harmony of 
the organs, but that harmony is an effect of the organic 
bodies themselves ; and every part of this whole has its 
cause not in itself, but in the cause of the whole. A 
mechanical work of art is produced to perform certain 
work in accordance with the idea in the mind of the 
artist. Every organism also is based on an idea or type, 
and in accordance with this idea its organs are organ- 
ized. But this idea exists outside of the machine, 
whereas it works in the organism and works of neces- 
sity." 1 Thus, not matter, taken from outside, causes 
the unity and harmony of an organism, but the unity 
and harmony precede it. The unity and harmony exist 
in the germ, before the later parts (previously undis- 
tinguishable) of the whole exist as such, and it is they 
(unity, harmony) that really produce the members 
essential to the idea of the whole. 

Hence, that which makes the organism what it is, is 
the typical idea of the plastically operating force im- 

Physiologie des Menschen," p. 23. 



i << 



THE SOUL, THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFE. 503 

manent in the body. The germ, Muller continues, 
which is a simple cell, is the whole in potentia; with the 
development of the germ the parts arise in actu. This 
first formation and development of the cell is a proceed- 
ing which has its parallel nowhere in inorganic nature ; 
in its essentials it is the same in plants and animals, 
and here the initial unity reveals itself in a striking 
manner by the power and activity that creates them. 

365. To Explain Organisms We Must Accept a 
Soul, or Principle of Life. — It is this organic prin- 
ciple of life, the soul, which makes the body what it 
really is. Therefore, wherever there is life there is 
the principle of life, a soul. Were organisms nothing 
but the result of material powers, then, by the proper 
combination of them, we ought to be able to produce a 
living body. But, in spite of all progress in natural sci- 
ence, nobody has yet dreamt of bringing forth a living 
body out of the crucible, not even a plant or a leaf. 

The elements, the chemical constituent parts, found 
in the animal body are known; the relations in 
which they stand to one another can be expressed in 
arithmetical formulas ; but science has not succeeded in 
producing an organism. Were it only a mixture of 
matter, we ought to be able to imitate it, because the 
proportions of the mixture are known. The reason why 
this is impossible is evident. A principle not in the 
domain of science is wanting— the principle of life, the 
soul, which God granted to living beings at their crea- 
tion. Science operates only with the physico-chemical 
properties of organic and inorganic matter. When men 
tell us that science does not yet know all the means 
by which nature works, this is a worthless subterfuge. 
When they speak thus they postulate the unknown 
force — evident from its effects — which operates in nature 
and which we have characterized as the principle of 



504 man's component elements. 

life — the soul. They do the same when they tell us 
that, "under certain relations," " through certain com- 
binations," " under certain peculiar circumstances and 
conditions," organic life arises from the simultaneous 
action of material elements. When we ask, What 
are these peculiar conditions which constitute the gen- 
eral physical laws for the appearance of the individual 
life ? they answer : They are conditions required in the 
organization of the being. But what light does this 
answer shed on the problem? It is only introducing 
another term, in order not to be obliged to accept the 
principle of life — the soul. But it is precisely this prin- 
ciple of life which arranges and governs the mate- 
rial elements found in the body, and which makes 
use of the lower material forces for the benefit of the 
whole, which forms by their means the individual whole. 
Thus only is the unity of the body well established. 
Hence, as soon as the principle of life escapes, cor- 
ruption takes the place of vital action; the body, as 
an organism, perishes; and the chemical elements 
being no longer governed by the principle of life 
and used in accordance with its laws, the general 
forces of matter overpower the organic formation. The 
law of capillarity, of endosmosis and exosmosis, especially 
proves this. If asked to explain the fact that the blood 
in a living blood-vessel does not clot, physiology knows 
no other answer than this. " It is caused by the influence 
of the sides of the living vessel ;" ' because a mutual anas- 
tomosis (inosculation of vessels) of the sensor and motor 
nerves does not take place, but every irritation of the 
sensible nerves operates only upon the motor nerves 

1 Wtmdt, "Physiologic" § no.— "Why does the stomach not 
digest itself, if chemico-physical powers only are at work?" 
asks CI. Bernard (Criticism of Janet, " Causes Finales," " Journal 
des Savants," 1877). 



ORGANIC AND INORGANIC BODIES. 505 

through the medium of the gray matter of the spine, 
the 'reflex movement" 1 cannot be explained by the 
mechanism of the conducting media {Leitungsverhdlt- 
nisse). As the action of a mechanism cannot explain the 
regenerative power which produces essential organs 
(head, tail) in inferior organisms, and operates in higher 
ones as a natural healing force, so the animal instinct, 
this objective conformability, cannot be produced by 
physico-chemical forces. 

366. Difference Between Organic and Inorganic 
Bodies. — Certainly there are physico-chemical forces 
active in the organism, but it does not follow that the 
organism is merely the effect of these forces. St. 
Thomas observes that the vegetative activity, the 
appearances of growth and nourishment, and even of 
feeling and movement, are the effects of the physico- 
chemical forces, 2 of which the immanent principle of 
life makes use, but which do not exclude its controlling 
power, but, on the contrary, presuppose them. Only 
in this way can we explain why elements which are in- 
different to this or that formation, form a particular 
organism, a particular kind and species, and no other. 
Hence we infer precisely the contrary of what material- 

' Reflex movements " in physiology are certain involuntary 
motions, caused by the irritation of a nerve, e.g., sneezing, by 
the irritation of the mucous membrane of the nose. 

2 "Summa Theologica" i., qu. lxxviii., art. 1. : Etsi calidum et 
fngidum, humidum et siccum et aliae hujusmodi qualitates pure 
corporee requirantur ad operationum sensus, non tamen ita 
quod mediante virtute talium qualitatum operatio anime sensi- 
tive procedat, sed requiruntur solum ad debitam dispositionem 
organi. Infirma operatio animae fit per organum corporeum et vir- 
tute corporee qualitatis; hujusmodi autem operationes sunt ab 
mtrmseco principio. Et talis est operatio animaa vegetative 
Uigestio et ea que sequuntur, fit instrumentaliter per actionem 
caioris. 



506 MAN S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. 

ists assert; not the material qualities are the cause of 
the whole, but the whole, the principle of life, is the 
cause of the physico-chemical process, following its 
direction. "Life," says Cuvier, "acts very differ- 
ently from chemical affinity on the material elements 
which it attracts and rises; hence, it cannot be their 
product." 1 "The body does not live because the phy- 
sico-chemical forces are active," says Flourens, "but 
the forces are active because the body lives." In 
another place the same author says : " It is not matter 
which lives ; force lives in matter, moves and agitates 
it, and renews it continually." Even Burmeister ad- 
mits: "In organic bodies matter is not the element 
which conditions the form, but rather the contrary; 
that is, the form of the organism is the essential ele- 
ment to which the material basis is subordinate." 

This power of organisms to control the chemical 
affinities of the matter which constitutes them — that 
is, the peculiar relations in which they stand to one 
another — is one side of those qualities which we desig- 
nate by the word "life," and for which we accept the 
words "vital force." What this force is, we know as 
little as what force in general is. But it is enough for us 
to know that this vital force governs chemical affinity as 
long as it lasts. When the period within which the organ- 
ism moves as a periodical body ends, death sets in . Then 
chemical affinity again controls the matter of the organ- 
ism, and changes it by various processes — fermentation 
and corruption — into inorganic substances. According 
to Biot, man is able to excite dead matter to certain activ- 
ities, to awake them, so to say, through the forces which 
operate within it or which he introduces from without ; 

1 " Le Regne Animal," p. 17. 

2 " De la Vie et de 1' Intelligence, "vol. i., p. 156, and vol. ii., p. 
98. 8 " Geschichte der Schopftmg," 3d ed., p. 304. 



THE NATURE OF OUR SOUL. 507 

but, with all his intelligence, man is unable to create 
the least atom ; much less can he produce a living being 
by the combination of dead matter, or by the action of 
dynamic powers. 1 

Only by the unity of the principle of life can we 
explain the indivisible unity especially of the higher 
classes of living beings, the harmony of their functions, 
which acts in accordance with a plan and end. Finally, 
only by its means can we explain the peculiar laws which 
determine organic life, and which are quite different from 
those of mere matter both as regards the composition of 
bodies, and their form and shape, their origin and growth. 
Hence, we must either deny these unquestionable facts, 
or, since they cannot be explained as the effect of mere 

material forces, we must accept a higher principle 

that is, a soul. 

367. What Holy Scripture Tells us about the 
Nature of Our Soul.— After these somewhat dry 
and philosophical, but necessary, explanations of the 
principle of life— the soul— let 'us listen to what Holy 
Scripture tells us about the nature of our soul. The 
Abbe Vigouroux, says on this subject: 2 

" Nowhere in the Bible do we meet a didactic expla- 
nation of the nature of the soul — no more than a formal 
proof of its existence and of its distinctness from the 
body: the philosophical method, the subtle analysis, of 
which the Greeks have left to us the precept and the 
example, are not in accordance with the genius of the 
Orientals, who express themselves only by means of 
images, and who dread abstractions. But if we wish to 
know the ideas hidden under their metaphors, and, by 
stripping the thought of borrowed ornaments, contem- 
plate the naked truth, it will be an easy matter for any 

1 Z. Ph. v. Martius, " Gedachtnissrede iiber Biot." 

La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes," vol. iii., p. 112 seq. 



2 k 



5<d8 man's component elements. 

person willing to see to obtain a clear knowledge of 
Hebrew psychology and to admire its precision. 

" The whole of it is summed up on the first page of 
Genesis. According to the sacred narrative, God first 
formed the material part of man, his body, which He 
drew from the slime of the earth, afar min ha dddmdh. 
After this He breathed into it the breath of life, He 
imparted to it an immaterial spirit, nihnat-haim. The 
union of this body and spirit, of this afar and nihnat, 
forms man, the nefes hayah, 'the living soul,' which 
receives the name Adam, or 'man.' The earthy body, 
although formed by the hands of God, is therefore at 
first only a lifeless statue ; it becomes man only after 
a new element, the nihnat-haim, has been added to the 
first, and these two elements form a single person. Can 
we desire a clearer affirmation of the soul's existence, as 
well as of the distinction between the body and the 
soul and the difference in their nature? 

" However, Holy Writ adds a feature which makes 
these truths even more striking and palpable. Man 
is superior to the animal in body, for it is the work 
of the hands of God Himself; but his superiority 
lies especially in his soul, because his soul is made 'after 
the image and likeness' of God, its Creator. Men have 
admired, and with good reason, the disciple of Socrates 
when he called man a 'celestial plant;' and, nevertheless, 
what is the language of Plato in comparison with that 
of Genesis, which, in our soul, shows us the image of 
God? What a depth in this simple expression! The 
words of Moses have, and can have, but one meaning ; 
in our cold and colorless, but more precise, language 
they mean : Man is composed of a body and a soul ; his 
body has been formed from the earth, but his soul was 
created directly by God, and it is in the soul that man 
resembles his Creator. In his body he is not His image, 



THE NATURE OF OUR SOUL. 509 

for this is common to him and all other living: beings, 
and, consequently, is no characteristic mark, or, as the 
philosophers express it, is not 'his specific difference;' 
he is God's image in his spiritual, intelligent, and free 
soul, which is his exclusive privilege, making him the 
king of creation and giving to him the right to command 
all nature. 1 

"All this has been said since Moses' time, in more 
abstract and, if you wish, in more precise words; but it 
has never been said more sublimely and more correctly. 
'Again, ' says Bossuet, 'God formed all the other animals 
by saying, " Let the earth, let the water, bring forth the 
plants and the animals," 2 and thus they received both 
being and life. But after God had taken into His all- 
powerful hand the slime of which the human body was 
formed, Scripture does not say that He drew forth the 
soul therefrom, but Moses tells us that " He breathed 
into his body the breath pf life, and it is thus that man 
became a living soul. " ' 3 The Lord brings forth all things 
from their principles : He produces from the earth the 
vegetables, trees, and animals — all of which have no 
other life than a purely earthly and animal life. But 
the soul of man is brought forth from another principle, 
•namely, from God Himself. This is what the breath of 
life signifies, which God drew from His own mouth in 
order to animate man. That which is made after the 
image of God does not proceed from material things ; 
and this image is not hidden in these low elements in 
order to go forth from them as a statue does from the 
marble or the wood. Man has two principles: as re- 
gards his body he comes from the earth, as regards his 
soul he comes from God alone ; and this is the reason 
why Solomon says, ' Whilst the body returns to the earth 
whence it was, the spirit returns to God who gave it. * f 
'Gen. i. 28. 2 lb., i. 11, 20, 24. 3 lb., ii. 7. 4 Eccles. xii. 7. 



Sio man's component elements. 

368. Three Steps in Man's Creation. — "To sum 
up, there are three steps in man's creation: God 
first formed the material substance, the 'slime,' afar 
or the 'flesh,' bdsdr, called 'the body.' Then He 
gave to this body 'the spirit' which animates the 
same, nismat, His breath, which. Scripture elsewhere 
calls ruah — what the Greeks called pneuma, the Latins, 
spiritus. Finally, from the union of the spirit and 
matter the human person proceeds, the nefes hay ah, 
'the living soul,' the one compound being — man, 
psyche, anima. The living soul, or man, is therefore 
not 'the spirit' alone, any more than the body alone; 
it is a compound of both — the confunctum, as St. 
Thomas calls it, the personality which from two differ- 
ent substances forms one single individuality. Hence 
the custom, in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, of using 
nefes Aor the reflexive pronoun 'oneself.' 1 

369. The Distinction Between Body and Soul 
and Their Union are Clearly Expressed in Holy 
Scripture. — " The sense of these different words, bdsdr, 
ruah, nefes, and their synonyms, is faithfully preserved 
in all the books of the Old and New Testaments, 2 in the 
original text as well as in the Septuagint and Latin Vul- 
gate. 'Man's flesh' {bdsdr), says Job, 'shall have pain 
and his soul {nefes) shall mourn.' 3 'Because my soul 
{leb) rejoices, my body {bdsdr) hopes,' sings the Psalm- 
ist. 4 The Proverbs say in the same sense, 'Health 

1 I Kings i. 15; Amos vi. 8; see Exod. xxiii. 9, the sense of 
person. 

2 This rule, however, admits of exceptions, like all rules of 
language ; " nefes" and " ruah" are employed sometimes as syno- 
nyms (Job xii. 10), just as in English we often use soul for spirit. 

3 Job xiv. 12. 

4 Ps. xvi. 9. — The word leb, "heart," often designates in 
Hebrew the seat of intelligence, and in this sense is used as a 
synonym for "nefes" or "ruah." The Psalms are here cited 



DISTINCTION BETWEEN BODY AND SOUL. 5 I I 

of body (besdrim) is the tranquillity of the soul. ' ' 'God, ' 
says Job to his friends, 'holds in His hand the soul (n<?fes) 
of every living thing, and the spirit (ruah) of all flesh of 
man (bdsdr).^ 'The spirit {psyche) indeed is willing,' 
says Our Saviour in St. Matthew, 'but the flesh (sarx) is 
weak.' 3 'My soul (psyche) doth magnify the Lord, and 
my spirit (pneuma) hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,' 
chants the Blessed Virgin Mary. 4 ' That your whole spirit 
(pneuma) and soul (psyche) and body (soma) may be 
preserved blameless in the coming of Our Lord Jesus 
Christ,' writes St. Paul to the Thessalonians. 5 

' By a singular coincidence, the philosopher of Sta- 
gyra, in his 'Treatise on the Soul,' speaks just like the 
Bible ; he also distinguishes in man the body, the spirit, 
and the soul, the soma, the nous, and the psyche, and he 
also makes the spirit come from outside. 6 

' Thus the distinction between the soul and the body, 
and the intimate union of these two substances forming 
only a single person, are clearly expressed in the Bible. 
The Hebrew psychology also attributes very plainly to 
ne'fes the faculties which we attribute to the human per- 
son : sensibility, intelligence, and will. It loves, 7 it 
hates, 8 it rejoices, 9 it is afflicted; 10 the sensations of 

according to the Hebrew Bible, and the translation is from the 
French of Vigouroux. 

1 Prov. xiv. 30. See also Ps. xxxiv. 3. 

2 Job xii. 10. See also Num. xvi. 22. Compare also Is. x. 
18, and xxxi. 3 : " The Egyptians are only men and not gods, and 
their horses are only flesh (bdsdr) and no spirit (ruah)." 

3 Matt, xx vi. 41. 4 Luke i. 46, 47. 

5 I Thess. v. 23; cf. I. Cor. xv. 45, 46, 47, and Heb. iv. 12. 

6 See the first chapter of the second book " De Anima," Aris- 
toteles, Opera, Aureliae Allobrogum, 1605, vol. i., p. 486. 

7 Gen. xxxiv. 3; I Sam. xviii. 1; Cant. i. 7; Is. xlii. 1, etc. 

8 Ps. xvii. 9; Is. i. 14; xlix. 7. 9 P s . lxxxvi. 4. 
10 Jobxxiv. 12; xxx. 16, 25; Ps. xlii. 6, 12; xliii. 5, etc. 



512 MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. 

pain * and pleasure, 2 hunger 3 and thirst, 4 are also ascribed 
to it, as well as the feelings of fear 5 and hope, of 
strength 7 and weakness, 8 the vices 9 and virtues, 10 de- 
sire " and disgust, 12 blessings 13 and imprecations. 14 It is 
this human personality which knows, 15 thinks, 16 remem- 
bers, 17 and forgets; 18 which wills 19 and which wills not,' 20 
which forms resolutions and executes them. 21 ' Arik 
nefes™ corresponds word for word to 'longanimity,' 
qdser ne'fes' 22 to 'pusillanimity.' The ruah designating 
"the spirit," is naturally like ne'fes, the principle of 
feelings and affections, 24 of the will 25 and intelligence. 26 
370. The Psychology of the Israelites. — "The 
Bible nowhere tells us what is the essence of the ruah. 
It has been claimed that to the Israelites the soul was 

1 Gen. xlii. 21 ; Num. xxi. 5; Job x. 1 ; Ps. lxxxviii. 4, 

2 Ezech. xxv. 6. 3 Prov. x. 3. 4 Prov. xxv. 25. 

5 Is. xv. 4. Sentiments, dispositions in general, Exod. xxiii. 
9.— 1. Kings i. 15. To pour out one's soul, i.e., everything one has 
on the heart, Ps. lvii. 2; cxxx. 5. 

6 Ps. lvii. 2; cxxx. 5. 7 Jud. v. 21. 
s Ps. cvi. 15; cxix. 18; Jer. iv. 31, etc. 

9 Prov. xxviii. 25, of pride; Ezech. xxxvi. 5, of hatred against 
the people of God; Lev. iv. 2; v. 15, 17, etc., of sin. 

JU Ps. lxxxvi. 4; cxliii. 8, of piety toward God. 

11 Deut. xii. 15; xiv. 26; xviii. 6; Is. xxxvi. 8, 9; Ps. xlii. 2; 
lxxxiv. 3; Mich. vii. 3. I2 Jud. xvi. 16. 

13 Gen. xxvii. 4; Ps. ciii. 1, 2, etc. 14 Job xxxi. 30. 

15 Ps. cxxxix. 14 ; Prov. xix. 2. It speaks, Lament, iii. 24 ; it 
hears, Jer. iv. 9, in the sense of Ego, designating the person, I 
speak, I hear. l6 1. Kings xx. 20. 

17 Lament, iii. 20; Deut. iv. 9. 18 Ps. ciii. 2. 

r " Gen. xxiii. 8; 1. Paral. xxviii. 9; cf. Col. iii. 23. 

20 Job vi. 7. "' Ps. cxix. 129. 

22 Job vi. 11. ~ 3 Num. xxi. 4. 

24 Prov. xxv. 28; xi. 13; xvii. 22; Gen. xxvi. 35; Ps. li. 12, 
19, etc. 

25 Exod. xxviii. 21; II. Kings xix. 7; Is. xxxvii. 7. 

26 Exod. xxviii. 3, Deut. xxiv. 9; Is. xi. 2. 



THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITES. Ci? 

no spiritual being, because it is designated by names sig- 
nifying 'breath' and 'wind.' This argument, borrowed 
from etymology, is without value. Human language 
has been obliged to make use of sensible and material 
images in order to express metaphysical ideas and to 
designate immaterial beings ; this is a rule which admits 
of no exception. For most nations, perhaps because of 
an obscure remembrance of the old and. primitive tradi- 
tion of the origin of the soul, have considered 'the breath, ' 
'the wind,' as the image most expressive and most suit- 
able to paint to the imagination and to express in 
words the spirit, the hidden and immaterial agent 
which our senses cannot perceive, as our eyes cannot 
see the invisible wind whose existence manifests itself 
only by its effects/ 'Soul,' 'spirit,' primitively had no 
other meaning than 'breath.' In Latin, in Greek in 
Sanscrit, as well as in Hebrew and in Arabic, the same 
words designate the soul and the wind. 

"The expressions, therefore, used by the Bible 
rather indicate the immaterial character of the thinking 
principle, because they designate it by the least gross and 
the most subtle terms that could be found, by terms iden- 
tical with those employed by the most spiritualistic phi- 
losophers, such as Plato, St. Augustine, Leibnitz. No- 
where does the Bible say that the soul is a corporal being; 
True, it does not tell us that the soul is a pure spirit It 
could not even tell us this, for it possessed no word to 
express the idea. The New Testament even does not tell 
us this. 2 But all that the Bible could do, it did- it ha* 
suggested spirituality of the soul. It speaks to us aboui 
the nature of the soul, as far as its simplicity is con- 
cerned, m the same terms in which it speaks of the 
nature of God. Nowhere does the Bible affirm explic 
itly that God is a pure spirit, but neither does it assert 
J Ps. Ixxviii. 39. . However, see Luke xxiv. 39 



514 man's component elements. 

that God is flesh, body, matter. 1 Even in its boldest 
anthropomorphic metaphors it avoids expressions which 
might lead man to believe that God is a being like us. 
Thus it has taught the immateriality of God by way of 
reticence and suggestion, as far as the language in 
which it is written — imperfect and incomplete from the 
metaphysical point of view — permitted it. 

" The same remarks apply to the notion of the spirit- 
uality of the soul. The soul, or the ruah, is distinct 
from the body. The word nefes is predicated of men 
and beasts, like our English 'soul,' because it does not 
exclude the body, and it often signifies 'life,' 2 but it 
cannot be used for God. 3 The word ruah, 'the spirit,' 
on the contrary, is used in Hebrew like 'spirit' in our 
language, of God and man, but not of animals. 4 Hence 
between God and the ruah there is some analogy in their 
natures which distinguishes the latter from, material 
things. In fact, the ruah is never confounded with the 
compound of earth which is called the body ; it is even 
several times carefully distinguished therefrom. Eccle- 
siastes opposed the ruah, which returns to God, its 
author, to the afar, which returns to the earth from 
whence it was taken. 5 Moses and Job also distinguish 
ruah from ba'sdr? the spirit from the body. Man, when 

' God is even put in opposition to flesh to express thereby that 
He has no body. -Ps. lvi. 5: Jer. xvii. 5. In the New Testament 
St. John says clearly, " God is a spirit."— John iv. 24. 

2 Hence the expression, " For the life {nefes) of all flesh is in 
the blood."— Lev. xvii. 14, etc. 

3 Amos vi. 8. Nefes is said of God, but only in the sense of 
Himself, because the usage had rendered this word the reflex 
pronoun in Hebrew as well as in Arabic. See Job ix. 21. 

4 It is used of animals in a different sense, that is, of the res- 
piratory breath, of life (Gen. vii. 22), but never as the principle 
of animal acts. & Eccles - xii - ?■ 

6 Num. xvi. 22 ; Job xii. 10. 



THE UNION BETWEEN SOUL AND BODY. 515 

he listens to his carnal passions, descends from his posi- 
tion of honor and becomes like to the beasts ; ' his better 
being is only a little less than the angels ; 2 he is like to 
God. Now this likeness to God resides especially in the 
soul, in this 'breath of God,' 3 this 'breath of intelli- 
gence,' 4 which is in us the 'lamp of the Lord,' 5 accord- 
ing to the expressions of the Bible, in the soul, which 
is endowed with reason; whilst animals are deprived 
thereof, according to the expression of the Psalmist. 6 

37 1. The Union Between Soul and Body is not 
Indissoluble. — "The union which exists between 
the body and the soul of man is not indissoluble ; it is 
broken by death. The Hebrews looked, on death as the 
separation of the soul from the body. Creatures cease 
to live, and become dust again, when God withdraws 
their souls, ruham: Again, 'to die,' with the sacred 
writers, is 'to strip his soul naked,' 8 which seems to 
suggest that the body is, so to say, the soul's garment, 
of which death strips it. 

"Resurrection is accomplished by the return of 
the soul into the body which it animated. While the 
prophet Elias was at Sarephta, the widow who gave him 
hospitality lost her only son. 'And she said to Elias: 
What have I to do with thee, thou man of God? Art 
thou come to me that my iniquities be remembered, 
and that thou shouldst kill my son ? And he took the 
child and he cried out to the Lord and said : O Lord 
my God ! let the soul (nefes) of this child return into his 
body. And the Lord heard the voice of Elias, and the 

1 Ps. xlix. (Vulgate xlviii.) 13, 21. 2 p g> v{{l ^ 

3 Gen. ii. 7. « Job xx. 3 ; xxxii. 8. • p rov xx 27 

6 Ps. xxxii. (xxxi.) 9. 7 p s> dv 29 

*He'erdh lammavet naf'sd, " nudavit per mortem animam suam " 
Is. I111. 12. See also Ps. cxli. 8. and II. Cor. vi. 3. "The body 
is the house of the soul," Job iv. 19. 



5 16 man's component elements. 

soul {nefes) of the child returned into him, and he re- 
vived.' ' In the same terms St. Luke relates the resur- 
rection of the daughter of Jairus : 'At the voice of Jesus, 
her spirit (pneuma) returned into her. ' 2 When Ezechiel, 
in his famous vision of the dry bones, had prophesied 
over them the first time, they took again their original 
form ; nothing was wanting — nerves, flesh, skin — ex- 
cept life, because 'the soul (ruah) was not in them.' By 
the order of God, the prophet prophesied a second time. 
Then the soul came to animate the bodies and they 
'lived anew, and they received motion.' " 3 • 

Therefore the life of man is the effect of the union 
between the body and the soul, and death is the rupture 
of this union. The body separated from the soul is 
buried in the bosom, of the earth and returns into dust, 4 
but will the soul separated from the body die also ? 
What will become of it ? These questions will form the 
subject of our next and last chapter. 

After learning what is the essence and nature of our 
soul, we should now prove its existence from its man- 
ifestations. However, having sufficiently proved this 
in the chapters in which we examined the difference 
between man and animal, we refer the reader to the argu- 
ments there set forth. To conclude the present chapter 
we shall inquire into the principal objections materialism 
alleges against the existence of the soul. 

372. Objections against the Existence of the 
Soul. — Those who deny the existence of the soul base 
their denial on the great influence the body exer- 
cises on man's faculty of thinking. They tell us that 
the development of the spirit keeps even pace with that 
of the body, and that the greater the brain-mass is, the 
greater is the intelligence. The power of thought in 

' I. (III.) Kings xvii. 18-23. 2 Luke viii - 55- 

:! Ezech. xxxvii. i Gen. iii. 19. 



THE SOUL NO COMPLEXUS OF CORPORAL ORGANS. 517 

man, they say, disappears, or becomes disordered, if an 
abnormal change takes place in the brain, or if the brain 
is removed. 

373- The Flaw in these Objections.— These and 
similar objections rest on false premises. They are 
worthless because they confound the instrument, without 
which a power cannot work, with the power itself. If 
it were true that our soul is as dependent on the body 
and on the brain as is asserted, and even more so, 
still, this dependence would not do away with the 
soul as a substance free, self-conscious, self-existing, 
different and separable from the body. No doubt the 
soul is dependent in its activity on the body, and par- 
ticularly on the brain. Still, it does not follow that " the 
soul is only the sum of the faculties and powers " of the 
corporal organs and their activities. Through God's 
almighty power the corporal organs and their activity 
are so intimately and mysteriously connected with the 
soul that they are in mutual need of each other. The 
body cannot exist without the soul, and the soul, to 
exercise its activity, is to a certain degree in need of 
corporal organs; without them, its normal activity is 
disturbed or impossible. 

374. The Soul is no Complexus of Corporal 
Organs.— But from this it does not by any means follow 
that the soul is only a complexus of corporal organs and 
their activities. In its dependence upon the body we 
can compare the soul with a player, who cannot play 
without his instrument. A master on the violin, or any 
other instrument, will bring forth the most sublime 
sounds from the instrument as long as this is in good 
order. But if the instrument is broken or damaged, 
the greatest virtuoso will produce only false notes! 
Still, who would assert that the instrument is the player 
because the player cannot show his skill without the 



5 18 man's component elements. 

instrument ? Or who would assert that the soft and tender 
sounds drawn from a violin, or the mighty tones of an 
organ, are only the work of the strings or keys the player 
touches with his bow or fingers ? Without the spirit of 
the player, his thoughts, and the feelings he expresses 
in his playing, the best instrument cannot give forth 
a musical composition. So man's soul is certainly 
dependent on his corporal organs, and especially on 
his brain. But only a fool will believe that the soul is 
nothing more than the activity of the body. 

375. The Development of the Spirit Keeps Pace 
with that of the Body. — The development of man's 
spirit will therefore keep pace with that of the body, or 
will be conditioned by it. As long as the brain is not 
yet developed the faculty of thinking, and the soul's 
activity in general, will be more or less dormant in a 
child, or will manifest itself only in an imperfect manner. 
But according as the brain grows the spirit develops. 
In old age the organs of the body become weaker, and 
the activities of the soul diminish. If the body is sick, 
its suffering may exercise a disturbing influence on the 
activity of the soul, and, in some cases, check it alto- 
gether. But it does not follow that the soul is the body, 
and that the soul's activity is a function of our cor- 
poral organs. The phenomena we have mentioned, 
and a hundred others, only prove that the soul is de- 
pendent on them in its workings and conditioned by 
them. , 

376. Exceptions to the Rule. — This becomes 
clearer to us if we point out cases in which mental 
and corporal development are not parallel. How often 
do we not notice in children a mental development and 
ripeness out of all proportion to their corporal develop- 
ment ! We see aged men who, while their bodies decline, 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPIRIT AND THE BODY. 519 

surprise us by the wonderful freshness of their minds 
and their unusually clear mental powers. 1 

'Study," says Duihle, "a man of intelligence and 
talent, if you wish, a man of genius, on the point of 
death. . . .Behold him emaciated, broken down under 
the triple weight of work, age, and sickness. Death 
has already put his icy fingers upon every one of his 
limbs. A feather, a piece of paper, would be too heavy 
for his hand, which has not even the strength to tremble 
like the hand of an old man. At the same time the 
spirit is full of intelligence, the soul has preserved its 
full strength, all its life. What do I say! Its trans- 
ports, raptures, manifestations, are more radiant than 
ever. Have we not read wonderful pages, masterpieces^ 
dictated by the dying?" 2 

Indeed, how often does it happen that a sickness which 
attacks some part of the body has no influence whatever 
on the faculties of the spirit. We read of cases in which 
even a partial destruction of the brain caused no change 
whatsoever in the soul life. Clearness of mind, full 
consciousness until the last moment, are proofs that 
the soul is no function of the corporal organs, but a 
self-existing substance, different from the body. " How 
often," says Louergne, 3 a medical doctor, "have not the 
last wishes of the dying struck by-standers with wonder ! 
How does it come that a man on the verge of the grave 
is so precise in his morality, so careful, that he 
seems superior to all that has taken place thus far ; that 
in his extreme distress he is suddenly endowed with a 

We need only mention Socrates, Sophocles, Plato, A. v. Hum- 
boldt, Goethe, and Ranke the historian. Herder when dying said 
to his son : " Suggest to me some grand thought ; this alone gives 
me a little strength." 2 " Apologie Scientifique," p. 457. 
3 " De TAgonie et de la Mort," vol. L, p. 75. 



520 MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. 

sense of prudence, of foresight, of localities, of relations, 
and of space ; in possession of such a memory of absent 
and forgotten things and persons ; filled with such rare 
wisdom, such supernatural aspirations — with the senti- 
ments of religion, of God, and with firmness of charac- 
ter? We have said it already: The soul, released from 
the ties of matter, belongs altogether to itself ; and in 
its isolation shows itself either altogether beautiful or 
altogether deformed." 

Liebig, in his "Chemical Letters," says very truly of 
those who consider the soul the product of the brain or 
corporal organs : 

" If you strip the argument of these people of its 
borrowed tinsel, of apparent reasons which in the eyes 
of the inquirer and thinker are nothing but illuminated 
mist, then all that remains is that the legs are to run 
and the brain to think, and that thinking has to be 
learned as well as the child has to learn to walk ; that 
we cannot walk without legs nor think without brain ; 
that an injury to the means of moving impairs the power 
to walk, and an injury to the instruments of the soul, 
the thinking powers. But the flesh and the bones of 
which the legs consist do not move, but are moved by a 
cause which is not flesh and bone ; they are the instru- 
ments of a power ; the soft mass called the brain is the 
instrument of the cause which produces the thoughts." 

377. Disturbances of the Mind do not Prove 

THAT THE SOUL IS THE PRODUCT OF THE CORPORAL 

Organs. — Materialists also appeal to mental disturb- 
ances — to madness — to prove that the soul is only the 
product of the corporal organs. 

No doubt it is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory ex- 
planation of these phenomena. The most eminent 
physicians tell us that no final decision about the con- 
trol of the soul's life has been arrived at. However, 



DISTURBANCES OF THE MIND. 521 

so much is certain, that there is no idiocy or madness, 
properly speaking. Our mind may err and deceive 
itself, it can sin; but it cannot be sick. What we call 
imbecility or madness is only a diseased change in the 
body, especially in the nervous system and in the brain. 
Grief, fright, fear, too great mental effort, cause 
disturbances in the circulation of the blood and diges- 
tion ; and the organs of the body refuse their service to 
the mind, so that they lead it to incorrect representa- 
tions. 

378. Disturbances of the Mind Prove Only that 

Our Soul is Dependent upon the Body. These 

phenomena prove that our soul in its action is dependent 
upon the body as upon the instrument by means of 
which it operates. But do not the facts show that the 
soul is partially independent of our corporal organs ? 
The faculty of thinking is not destroyed by madness. 
The soul continues to think even in the most violent 
cases of madness. The mind is only stopped from 
thinking correctly on account of the diseased condition 
of the body. We notice that madmen at times pass 
quite reasonable judgments ; only one or other miscon- 
ception they cannot avoid. Let us recall the old simile 
comparing man to the player of an instrument. Give 
to the virtuoso a violin on which one string is out of 
tune. He will play magnificently—will enrapture you. 
We can hear the virtuoso in every note. But as soon as 
he touches the ill-tuned string he will produce a false 
tone. And if all the strings are mistuned, then the 
greatest virtuoso can bring forth only false notes. And 
still he is the same master who will -throw us into rapt- 
ures with another instrument. So it is with man in 
whom one or other organ of the body to which the soul 
is tied, so far as its action goes, is mistuned— that is to 
say, diseased, or changed from its normal condition. 



522 MAN'S component elements. 

It is also a fact that madmen generally recover the 
full use of their intellectual faculties on. their death-bed. 
They awake suddenly, as from a fainting or a heavy 
dream, and retain their full consciousness until the hour 
of death. This proves clearly that the soul's substance 
is different from the body, although dependent upon 
the latter in its action. 1 

379. Can We Know the State of a Soul bv 
Certain Marks in the Body? — Another objection is 
that there are peculiarities of the body by means of 
which we may know man's intellectual and moral quali- 
ties. By observing men's skulls Gall often succeeded 
in inferring their talents and inclinations. From the 
elevations and depressions in the skulls he recognized 
the presence or absence of certain qualities. From a 
man's features as well as from his corporal constitution 
inferences have been drawn as to his mental and moral 
peculiarities. 

Materialists have made use of these experiments 
as arguments against the existence of the soul. But 
even if these experiments were as reliable as is claimed, 
they would only be another proof of the view we have 
advanced. They would show that the soul and the body- 
are in intimate relation and connection ; that the soul 
in its action depends on the condition of the body and 
its organs, and that the latter have a greater influence on 
the soul than is generally believed. 

No sensible man will dare to infer the condition of 
the soul from that of the body, because it is well known 
how deceptive such inferences are. It may be that an 
elevation or depression in a certain place of the skull 
indicates an inclination to a certain virtue or vice ; the 
statement may be confirmed in a hundred cases that a 

1 Cf Burdack, " Anthropologic " p. 613; Letourneau, " Philo- 
sophic des Passions," p. 157. 



OUR PASSIONS AND EVIL INCLINATIONS. 523 

high arched forehead indicates eminent mental talents, 
or that large eyes indicate artistic talents, or that we 
may infer great intellectual power from a powerful fist. 
But who would dare to assert that great intelligence is 
found behind every beautifully-formed forehead, that 
large eyes are invariably the marks of artistic endow- 
ment, and that a powerful fist is always the sign of a 
strong mind? There are so many exceptions to all 
these rules that they are practically without value. 

380. We Can Always Overcome Our Passions and 
Evil Inclinations.— And even if it were true that we 
can ascertain talents and inclinations in the manner 
asserted, it would be equally true that we can rule 
our passions and evil inclinations by free-will, with the 
help of the grace of God. We can overcome and root 
out our vices and passions. No man is forced to commit 
a crime because it costs him a greater struggle to prac- 
tise virtue than it costs his more favored fellow. 

Therefore Holy Scripture tells us the truth when it 
says that man consists of two parts: of a body and a 
soul, which are united in us, and the union of which con- 
stitutes the unity of our being. Though there be many 
who in their blindness use their spirit to prove that they 
have no spirit, they will never succeed. They may 
desire this, in order to give themselves up without 
restraint to their sensual lust, their sins, and their 
vices; they will never succeed in killing their spirit- 
soul. For our soul is immortal, as we shall see in our 
next chapter. We glory in this immortal spirit, and say 
that in its possession lies our superiority over all other 
creatures and our dignity. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL AND ITS FUTURE LIFE. 

" And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into everlast- 
ing life." — Matth. xxv. 46. 

What will be the fate of man's soul after death? — Views of materi- 
alists. — Did the Hebrews believe in the immortality of the 
soul? — The Book of Wisdom. — Daniel. — Notions the Hebrews 
had of the soul's duration. — The Chaldeans also, the ances- 
tors of the Hebrews, believed in the immortality of the 
soul. — Funeral customs and burial places. — Proof of the 
Babylonian belief in another life. — Descent of Ishtar into 
Hades. — Egyptian belief in another life. — Proof of the 
Hebrew belief in the immortality of the soul. — Sheol of 
the souls. — Belief of the Etruscans. — Iranians. — Indians. — 
Greeks. — Romans. — Ancient Germans. — Other nations. — 
Immortality clearly revealed. — Future life and the idea of 
God. — What is death? — Nothing can be annihilated. — Only 
two things possible with regard to the human soul. — Life 
the fundamental law of creation. — Without a future life 
man would be the most lamentable of beings. — Man's 
destiny from the standpoint of Christian doctrine. — Three 
factors. — Virtue must be rewarded and vice punished. — This 
world does not sufficiently reward virtue or punish vice. — 
Conclusion. 

Having proved in the previous chapter the existence 
of our soul, it remains for us to inquire into its final 
destiny. . We are aware of the progress of infidelity 
in our days. There are many who deny that the 
soul lives after death. Death is death, they tell us. 
With death all is ended! They degrade man to a 
mere animal, and infidelity, for this reason, if for no 
other, is forced to reject the continuation of life after 
death. 



MATERIALISM AND THE FATE OF OUR SOUL. 525 

381. What will be the Soul's Fate after 
Death?— "He who fights," says Huxley, "for moral 
truth in this world of anguish and sin, is certainly 
stronger when he believes that sooner or later a vision 
of peace and happiness will take hold of his being. So 
also the one who works on the top of a mountain is more 
courageous when he sees awaiting him on the other side 
of the rocks and snows his home and rest .... If this 
fate were founded on a solid basis, certainly all mankind 
would cling to it just as obstinately as the sailor, when 
in danger of being drowned, clings to the buoy." 

These words of one of the most famous chiefs of 
materialistic science deny the immortality of the soul 
and, at the same time, voice the irresistible aspirations 
of the human heart. 

The teachings of faith on the destiny of man and on 
the future life are contained in this first lesson of the 
Catechism : 

Q. Why has God created you? 

A. To know God, love Him, serve Him, and thus 
obtain heaven, eternal life. 

^ The highest and most rational metaphysics answers 
like faith. 

382. Materialism and the Fate of Our Soul.— 
The desolating doctrine of total annihilation after death 
is found among the materialists. One of the foremost 
champions of the materialistic school, L. Biichner, has 
been most brutal in his denial of the immortality of the 
soul. 

" A spirit without a body is as little conceivable as 
electricity without a metal; the naturalist, therefore, 
must protest against the idea of individual immortality'; 
we cannot admit that the soul of a dead person con- 
tinues to exist It is dead, to return no more." 

Our pen revolts against setting down his odious bias- 



526 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

phemies against the Christian cemetery, the blessed field 
where the seed of immortality germinates, the mysteri- 
ous resting-place where sleep the faithful departed — 
according to the symbolic language of our faith, the 
" God's acre," where so many beloved await the signal 
of awakening. Biichner sees in the veneration of tombs 
nothing but an obstacle to public welfare, to rural econ- 
omy, to the free circulation of fertilizing matter ! He 
says : " The best, the most useful thing which man can do 
when dying is to leave behind him the greatest quantity 
of rare and rich phosphate of lime and salt, destined to 
form a richer association of molecules, and thereby 
increase the well-being of mankind." 1 Behold materi- 
alism in its grandeur and glory ! 

" The pretended arguments for the existence of a God 
and the so-called immortality of the soul are generally 
considered as the strongest basis of religion. What 
gives us the right to contradict the senses, which see 
man in his entirety marching toward death, and to ascribe 
eternal life to a part of us which we can see nowhere ? 

The ego of man is his body, which after death, is 

destroyed by the corruption of the grave, the dog, or 

vultures The so-called faculties of the soul develop, 

increase, and grow strong with the body, particularly 
with their most immediate organ, the brain; they de- 
crease with old age. That which is so intimately united 
with corporal organs ceases to be the centre of the 
circle when the circumference is no more. Only that 
is incorporeal which is not corporal. Whoever is not 
inflated with pride knows that he has no right to any 
life beyond the grave ; the idea of eternity causes us to 
shiver." a 

This is what materialism has to say about the immor- 

1 Biichner, " Kraft und Stoff," p. 360 seq. 

* D. Strauss, " Alter und neuer Glaube," chap. xli. 



BELIEF OF HEBREWS IN THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY. 527 

tality of our soul. The idea, the prospect of immortality, 
makes the infidel shiver. No wonder that this is the case, 
when men like Strauss, who have all their lives abused 
the faculties of their immortal soul, are summoned to 
enter eternity in order to render an account of the use 
they made of their talents and gifts. 

But again let us ask, What will be the fate of our 
soul after death? Holy Scripture and the traditions of 
mankind tell us that it will continue to live. Our soul 
itself tells us this, for it carries within itself the idea 
of immortality — a mighty, inextinguishable craving for 
everlasting life. Nothing can satisfy it except the ever- 
lasting, the unchangeable, and the eternal. 

383. The Belief of the Hebrews in the Immor- 
tality of the Soul. — The " Academy of Inscriptions 
and Fine Arts" in Paris devoted several sessions in 1873 
to the question whether the Hebrews believed in the 
immortality of the soul. J. Halevy, the learned and 
intrepid explorer of Yemen, began this discussion. In 
an essay which he had read before the Academy he 
drew attention to some passages from an inscription 
of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon, which he translated 
thus: 'I have been carried off before my time into 
the midst of those who are separated from me to- 
day; besides my grandeur (literally 'elevation') I have 
been pious, a son of immortality." 1 The deceased on 
whose lips these words are placed, a little further on 
expresses the hope that the God to whom he addresses 
his prayer " may make him behold the Astarte of the 
magnificent gods." 2 In another place this hope is 
expressed again in almost similar terms. "He will 

1 J. Halevy, " Melanges d'Archeologie et d'Epigraphie Semi- 
tiques," 1874, p. 8. 

2 Op. cit, p. 9. Cf. Vigouroux, "La Bible et les Decouvertes 
Modernes," vol. iii., p. 123 seq. 



52 8 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

make me live with Astarte, with the magnificent gods." 
From these very explicit passages M. Halevy drew the 
conclusion that the Phoenicians, in the seventh century 
before our era, believed in a future life ; and he took 
occasion from this to oppose those who refused to the 
Semites of Palestine, contemporaries and neighbors of 
the subjects of Eshmunazar, this consoling faith in a 
future life, which is the foundation of all religion, 
morality, and virtue. 

In the sessions of February 28 and March 17, 1873, 
M. Derenbourg, a Jewish member of the " Academy of 
Inscriptions and Fine Arts," attacked the interpretation 
of the inscription of Eshmunazar given by his corelig- 
ionist, M. Halevy, and especially the conclusions he had 
drawn therefrom in favor of the belief of the Hebrews 
in the immortality of the soul. According to M. Deren- 
bourg, the Old Testament knew nothing of this doctrine, 
and the Jews learned it only afterward, through their 
contact with strangers, especially the Greeks. All the 
passages of the Sacred Books thought to contain allu- 
sions to a future life have been misinterpreted. It is 
only by forcing or exaggerating the literal sense of these 
passages that this doctrine has been found therein. 
" No text exists in the Scriptures from which we can 
reasonably infer that the Hebrews believed in the 
immortality of the soul." ] 

M. Renan, without going quite as far as his friend M. 
Derenbourg, nevertheless supported him in the debate 
which M. Derenbourg's thesis provoked among the mem- 
bers of the Academy. 2 Mgr. Freppel took occasion to 
answer them by two short but solid papers ; Halevy tried 
to support his views in a second memoir. 

The discussion, after remaining dormant for nearly 
ten years, was taken up anew by the same gentlemen 

1 "Journal officiel " of April 16, 1873, p. 2618. ' 2 Ibid. 



BELIEF OF HEBREWS IN THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY. 529 

toward the end of the year 1882. M. Halevy, in a 
memoir read before the Academy, enlarged the ques- 
tion by including in his inquiry all the Semitic peo- 
ples. They all believed in the immortality of the soul, 
and particularly the Assyrians. The Hebrews had the 
same belief on this point. But M. Derenbourg continued 
to maintain that his ancestors rejected this capital truth. 
" The Book of Job/' he says, " keeps silence thereon ; the 
Refaim in the 'se'.dl, to which our attention is called, do 
not enjoy a real life ; Ecclesiastes speaks of another 'life 
only in order to combat it; the Jews adopted this dogma 
only after the conquests of Alexander the Great ; it is 
a belief they borrowed from the philosophy of Plato, 
through the Alexandrians and Syrians." l 

M. Derenbourg was not the first to assert that the 
Hebrews did not know the doctrine of the immortality 
of the soul. Voltaire, in 1776, wrote: "Turn where you 
will, Jewish gentlemen, you will find in your sacred 
books no clear statement about hell or the immortality 
of the soul." 2 Voltaire in speaking thus was only the 
echo of a certain number of infidels, or nominal Chris- 
tians. Since Voltaire, it is especially Salvador and Cahen, 
both Jews, who, saturated with rationalistic views, main- 
tained that the ancient Hebrews had no knowledge of 
the immortality of the soul. They acknowledge that 
after the Babylonian captivity the doctrine of remuner- 
ation after death is clearly expressed in both the Deuter- 

1 "La Croyance de l'Immortalite de lime chez les Semites " 

7 ,I\ Ha i 6Vy ' " J ° Urnal officie1 '" ^Pt 14. 1882, pp. 5055-5057, 
and Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres," Comptes ren- 
dus 1882, pp. 210-213; "L'Immortalite de l'Ame chez les Juifs " 
by J. Derenbourg, Ibid., pp. 213-219, and "Journal officiel " Sept 
18 1882, p. 519. C f. Vigouroux, "La Bible et les Decouverte* 
Modernes," vol. iii., pp. 100-105. 

2 Voltaire, " Un Chretien contre six Juifs," (Euvres, vol. xlviii 
p. 5 12 > edit. Bouchet. 

34 



530 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

onomical books and in the Talmud, but the period which 
followed the first destruction of Jerusalem is set down 
by them as the date when this doctrine was engrafted 
on Jewish theology. 

384. The Constant Belief of the Jews in the 
Immortality of the Soul. — Let us note this acknowl- 
edgment. It is certain that the Talmudist Jews believed 
both in rewards and punishments in the other life ; that 
is, both in a heaven and a hell. The treatise Sanhedrin 
is very explicit on this subject. 1 Josephus believed in 
the immortality of the soul, 2 and he affirms that the 
Pharisees 3 and Essenes 4 alike taught this doctrine. We 
find the same belief clearly expressed in the last books 
of the Old Testament. The victims of the persecutions 
of Antiochus suffer the torments of the present life in 
order to escape those of the life to come, 5 and thus merit 
an eternal reward. 6 The author of the Second Book 
of Machabees teaches that the prayers of the living can 
relieve the souls of the dead in purgatory. 7 The Book 
of Wisdom affirms the dogma of the immortality of the 
soul, and of rewards and punishments, in the clearest 
terms. Death, it tells us, is the fruit of sin, but it is 
not annihilation. 

" The impious have said, reasoning with themselves, 
but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, 
and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no 
man hath been known to have returned from hell . . . . 

" For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there 
is no going back of our end : for it is fast sealed and no 
man returneth. 

1 See folios 90, b. ; 91, a. ; 92, b. ; 94, a., etc. 

2 Josephus, "De Bello Judaico," iii., viii., in his discourse to 
the soldiers. 3 Ibid., ii., viii., 14. 

4 Josephus, " Antiquitates Judaicoe," xviii., i. 3; " De Bello Ju- 
daico," ii., viii., p. .11. 5 "• Mach. iii. 26. 
6 Ibid., vii. 11, 14, 28: xav. 42. 7 Ibid., xii. 46. 



BELIEF OF THE JEWS IN THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY. 53 r 

"Come, therefore, and let us enjoy the good things 
that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as 
in youth. 

" Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments : 
and let not the flower of the time pass by us. 

"Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be 
withered : let no meadow escape our riot. 

" Let none of us go without his part in luxury, let us 
everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion 
and this is our lot. . . . 

" These things they (the impious) thought, and were 
deceived : for their own malice blinded them. 

" And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for 
the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honor of holy souls. 
" For God created man incorruptible, and to the image 
of His own likeness He made him. 

" But by the envy of the devil death came into the 
world: and they follow him that are of his side. 

" But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and 
the torment of death shall not touch them. 

" In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die : and 

their departure was taken for misery 

" Though in the sight of men they suffered torments 

their hope is full of immortality 

" The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like 
sparks among the reeds .... 

" But the wicked shall be punished according to their 
own devices: who have neglected the just and have 

revolted from the Lord 

"Then shall the just stand with great constancy 
against those who have afflicted them, and taken away 
their labors. 

" These seeing it shall be troubled with terrible fear 
and shall be amazed at the suddenness of their unex- 
pected salvation. 



532 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

" Saying- within themselves, repenting, and groaning 
for anguish of spirit: These are they whom we had 
some time in derision, and for a parable of reproach. 

" We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end 
without honor. 

" Behold, how they are numbered among the children 
of God, and their lot is among the saints. . . .- 

" Such things as these the sinners said in hell .... 

" But the just shall live forevermore : and their reward 
is with the Lord and the care of them with the Most 



High, 



" i 



The prophet Daniel sums up in a few words what we 
have quoted from the author of the Book of Wisdom. 

" At that time (at the end of time) a time shall come," 
he says, " such as never was from the time that nation 
began until that time. And at that time shall thy peo- 
ple (the Jewish people) be saved, every one that shall 
be found written in the book (of life) . And many of 
those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, 
some unto life everlasting (Itaye 'Slam) and others unto 
reproach, to see it always. But they that are learned 
shall shine as the brightness of the firmament : and they 
that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity." 

It is therefore clearly proved that the Jews, after the 
captivity, had an explicit belief in the life to come. We 
shall now examine what the Hebrews believed about 
the soul and its destiny after death from their begin- 
nings as a people until they were carried off to Chaldea. 

To avoid all misunderstanding, we shall examine suc- 
cessively the opinions the Hebrews held (i) on the soul's 
duration, or its immortality; (2) on the sf 61, or place of 
sojourn of the soul after death; (3) on the future life 
and the idea of God. 

3 Wisdom ii., iii. , v. 
2 Daniel xii. 1-3. 



-> ~> 



THE CHALDEANS AND THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY. 5 

385. The Soul's Duration, or its Immortality, 
among the Chaldeans.— According to the belief of 
the Hebrews at all times, the soul does not die; it is 
immortal. 

" From the very beginning the Hebrew race steadily 
adhered to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul 
as to a first principle. For them, as a people, it required, 
no proof, as being a truth which could not be gainsaid; 
moreover, it underlay all Hebrew tradition, and was 
assumed by the doctors of the law as an undeniable 
postulate. The Hebrews knew that death was a pun- 
ishment for sin, and not the complete annihilation of 
man. This their firm belief they manifested in various 
ways." ' 

On account of the surroundings from which the He- 
brews went forth, and among which they lived since 
Abraham, the father of their race, until Moses, their 
lawgiver, it was impossible, says Halevy, that they 
should have been ignorant of this great truth. All men 
have known this fundamental dogma. Maury says: 
" It is absurd to be obliged to prove to-day that among 
all races of men, with a few insignificant exceptions, 
there exists a unanimous belief that the life of man con- 
tinues after death, whatever form it may take. It is 
more than eighty years since a German savant, W. 
Fliigge, put this in its proper light by passing under 
review all the creeds and traditions of mankind. It is 
an undeniable fact that the Hebrews held the general 
belief on this question." 2 

Indeed, how could they be ignorant of this doctrine? 
We cannot doubt any longer that the Chaldeans, the 
ancestors of the Hebrews, believed in the immortality of 
the soul. Assurbanipal, relating in one of his inscrip- 

1 Ronayne, " God Knowable and Known," p. 326. 

2 "Journal officiel," April i6, 1873, p. 2618. 



534 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

tions the death of Tahraka, king of Egypt, says of him : 
Illik muz musi-su, " he went into his country (the land) 
of the night." 1 This expression, which must be very 
ancient, and must have been common to the inhabitants 
of Chaldea as well as to those of Syria, implies not only 
that men's souls survive after death, but also that they 
meet after death in a place appointed for them. 

386. Burial Places and Funeral Customs among 
the Chaldeans. — Among the most significant indica- 
tions of a people's belief regarding man's fate aftei 
death are its funeral customs. All the nations of the 
earth show a tender care for the dead; and this not 
only through affection for the friends and survivors of 
the dead ; the spirits were looked upon as a blessing to 
the living. Their dwellings were adorned and vener- 
ated; the dead were thought to be living in another 
world. Among some pagan nations it was a duty to 
defend and protect the graves of their ancestors as well 
as the altars of the gods. The Chaldeans must have 
had ideas of this kind, as modern excavations prove. 
George Rawlinson says on this subject : 

" Next to their (Chaldean) edifices, the most remark- 
able of the remains which the Chaldeans have left to 
after ages are their burial places. While ancient tombs 
are of very rare occurrence in Assyria and Upper Baby- 
lonia, Chaldea proper abounds with them. It has been 
conjectured, with some show of reason, that the Assyri- 
ans in the time of their power may have made the sacred 
land of Chaldea the general depository of their dead — 
much in the same way as the Persians even now use 
Kerbela and Nedjif, or Meshed Ali, as special cemetery 
cities, to which thousands of corpses are brought annu- 
ally. At any rate, the quantity of human relics accu- 
mulated upon certain Chaldean sites is enormous, and 
1 Geo. Smith, " Zeitschrift fur Egyptische Sprache," 1868, p. 113. 



CHALDEAN BURIAL PLACES AND FUNERALS. 535 

seems to be quite beyond what the mere population of 
the surrounding district could furnish. At Warka, for 
instance, excepting the triangular space between the 
three principal ruins, the whole remainder of the plat- 
form, the whole space within the walls, and an unknown 
extent of desert beyond them, are everywhere filled 
with human bones and sepulchres. In places, coffins 
are piled upon coffins, certainly to the depth of thirty, 
probably to the depth of sixty feet ; and for miles on 
every side of the ruins the traveller walks upon a soil 
teeming with the relics of ancient, and now probably 
extinct, races. Sometimes these relics manifestly belong 
to a number of distinct and widely separate eras, but 
there are places where it is otherwise. However we 
may account for it — and no account has been yet given 
which is altogether satisfactory — it seems clear from the 
comparative homogeneousness of the remains in some 
places that they belong to a single race, and if not to a 
single period, at any rate to only two, or, at the most, 
three distinct periods ; so that it is no longer very diffi- 
cult to distinguish the more ancient from the later relics. 
Such is the character of the remains at Mugheir, which 
are thought to contain nothing of later date than the 
close of the Babylonian period, 538 B.C.; and such is, 
still more remarkably, the character of the ruins at Abu- 
Shahrein and Tel-el-Lahm, which seem to be entirely, 
or almost entirely, Chaldean. In the folloAving account 
of the coffins and mode of burial employed by the early 
Chaldeans, examples will be drawn from these places 
only ; since otherwise we should be liable to confound 
together the productions of very different ages and 
peoples. 

1 The tombs to which an archaic character most cer- 
tainly attaches are of three kinds — brick vaults, clay 
coffins shaped like a dish-cover, and coffins in the same 



536 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

material formed of two large jars placed mouth to mouth 
and cemented together with bitumen. The brick vaults 
are found chiefly at Mugheir. They are seven feet long, 
three feet seven inches broad, and five feet high, com- 
posed of sun-dried bricks imbedded in mud, and exhibit 
a very remarkable form and construction of the arch. 
The side walls of the vaults slope outwards as they 
ascend, and the arch is formed, like those in Egyptian 
buildings and Scythian tombs, by each successive layer 
of bricks, from the point where the arch begins, a little 
overlapping the last, till the two sides of the roof are 
brought so near together that the aperture may be closed 
by a single brick. The floor of the vaults was paved 
with brick similar to that used for the roof and sides ; 
on this floor was commonly spread a matting of reeds, 
and the body was laid upon the matting. It was com- 
monly turned on the left side, the right arm falling 
towards the left, and the fingers resting on the edge of 
a copper bowl, usually placed on the palm of the left 
hand. The head was pillowed on a single sun-dried 
brick. Various articles of ornament and use were in- 
terred with each body, which will be more particularly 
described hereafter. Food seems often to have been 
placed in the tombs, and jars or other drinking vessels 
are universal. The brick vaults appear to have been 
family sepulchres ; they have often received three or 
four bodies, and in one case a single vault contained 
eleven skeletons. 

"The clay coffins* shaped like a dish-cover are among 
the most curious of the sepulchral remains of antiquity. 
On a platform of sun-dried brick is laid a mat exactly 
similar to those in common use among the Arabs of the 
country at the present day, and thereon lies the skele- 
ton, disposed as in the brick vaults, and surrounded by 
utensils and ornaments. Mat, skeleton, and utensils 



CHALDEAN BURIAL PLACES AND FUNERALS. 537 

are then concealed by a huge cover in burnt clay, formed 
of a single piece, which is commonly seven feet long, 
two or three feet high, and two feet and a half broad at 
the bottom. It is rarely that modern potters produce 
articles of half the size. Externally the covers have 
commonly some slight ornament, such as rims and shal- 
low indentations. Internally they are plain. Not more 
than two skeletons have ever been found under a single 
cover, and in these cases they were the skeletons of a 
male and a female. Children were interred separately, 
under covers about half the size of those for adults. 
•Tombs of this kind commonly occur at some considerable 
depth. None were discovered at Mugheir nearer the 
surface than seven or eight feet. 

c The third kind of tomb, common both at Mugheir 
and at Tel-el-Lahm, is almost as eccentric as the pre- 
ceding. Two large open-mouthed jars, shaped like the 
largest of the water-jars at present in use at Bagdad, 
are taken, and the body is disposed inside them with 
the usual accompaniments of dishes, vases, and orna- 
ments. The jars average from two and a half feet to 
three feet in depth, and have a diameter of about two 
feet; so that they would readily contain a full-sized 
corpse if it was slightly bent at the knees. Sometimes 
the two jars are of equal size, and are simply united at 
their mouths by a layer of bitumen ; but more commonly 
one is slightly larger than the other, and the smaller 
mouth is inserted into the larger one for a depth of 
three or four inches, while a coating of bitumen is still 
applied externally at the juncture. In each coffin there 
is an air-hole at one extremity, to allow the escape of 
the gases generated during decomposition. 

' Besides the coffins themselves, some other curious 
features are found in the burial places. The dead are 
commonly buried, not underneath the natural surface of 



538 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

the ground, but in extensive artificial mounds, each 
mound containing a vast number of coffins. The coffins 
are arranged side by side, often in several layers, and 
occasionally strips of masonry crossing each other at 
right angles separate the set of coffins from their neigh- 
bors. The surface of the mounds is sometimes paved 
with brick, and a similar pavement often separates the 
layers of coffins one from another. But the most re- 
markable feature in the tomb-mounds is their system of 
drainage. Long shafts of baked clay extend from the 
surface of the mound to its base, composed of a succes- 
sion of rings two feet in diameter and about a foot and 
a half in breadth, joined together by thin layers of bitu- 
men. To give the rings additional strength, the sides 
have a slight concave curve ; and still further to resist 
external pressure, the shafts are filled from bottom to 
top with a loose mass of brick pottery. At the top the 
shaft contracts rapidly by means of a ring of a peculiar 
shape, and above this ring are a series of perforated 
bricks leading up to the top of the mound, the surface 
of which is so arranged as to conduct the rain-water into 
these orifices. For the still more effectual drainage of 
the mound, the top piece of the shaft, immediately below 
the perforated bricks, and also the first rings, are full of 
small holes to admit any stray moisture; and besides 
this, for the space of a foot every way, the shafts are 
surrounded with broken pottery, so that the real diam- 
eter of each drain is as much as four feet. By these 
arrangements the piles have been kept perfectly dry; 
and the consequence is the preservation to the present 
day not only of the utensils and ornaments placed in the 
tombs, but of the very skeletons themselves, which are 
seen perfect on opening a tomb, though they generally 
crumble to dust at the first touch." l 
1 George Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," vol. i., pp. 85-90. 



BURIAL OF THE FIRST HEBREW PATRIARCHS. 539 

The care these peoples took of their sepulchres and 
the corpses of their dead, placing nourishment and water 
near them, as the jars and vessels prove, 1 are so many 
indications of the belief of the Assyrio-Chaldeans in the 
immortality of the soul. 

387. What We Know of the Burial of the 
First Hebrew Patriarchs.— The little we know of 
the burial of the first Hebrew patriarchs in the land 
of Canaan is sufficient to teach us the importance they 
attached to their sepulchres. Abraham, desirous of 
having a family tomb, bought one at a very high price. 
Here he buried Sara, his wife, and was buried there 
himself, as well as Isaac, his son, together with Rebecca, 
the wife of Isaac. 2 Jacob buried his spouse Lia in the 
same place, and on his death-bed bade his children to 
bury him there; which prayer they faithfully carried 
out. 3 Joseph also commanded his body to be taken to 
the Promised Land, after his people had taken possession 
thereof; and his descendants buried him at Sichem. 4 
Everything goes to show that the Chaldean branch 
transplanted from the shores of the Euphrates to Pales- 
tine rendered to the mortal remains of their departed 

We find similar customs among all ancient nations ; for in- 
stance, the Greeks, Latins, Etruscans, ancient Germans, as well 
as among our American Indians. Even to-day this custom is 
known to some extent. The Lapps bury with the corpse flint, 
steel, and tinder to supply light for the dark journey. The Chip- 
pewas light fires on the graves for four successive nights after 
the burial, in order to light the dead on his journey, which, as 
they believe, lasts four days. The Greenlanders have a touching 
custom : they bury with a child a dog as guide, for, say they, 
a dog will find his way anywhere. The "obolus" the ancient 
Greeks put in the dead man's mouth to pay Charon and the 
coin the Irish used to place in his hand are well known. The 
Indian practice of depositing weapons and food with the dead 
was universal in ancient Europe. 2 Gen. xxv. 27-29; xlix. 31. 

"lb., xlix. 31; 1. 13. * ft., 1. 24; Exod. viii. 19. 



54° THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

honors similar to those rendered to them in their mother 
country, and attached to the ceremonies the same mean- 
ing as to the life of the soul after death. 

388. Direct Proof of the Babylonian Belief 
in Another Life. — Besides these funeral customs, 
the account of the Deluge Berosus has preserved fur- 
nishes us with direct and positive proof of the Babylonian 
belief in another life. Xisuthrus, after the drying of 
the earth, as soon as he had offered a sacrifice to the 
gods, disappeared with those who had accompanied him. 
! When those who had remained in the boat did not see 
him coming back any more, they also disembarked and 
began to seek him by shouting his name. But they 
could see him no more ; and a voice was heard from on 
high saying to them: Honor the gods. Xisuthrus, in 
recompense for his piety, has been removed to live 
henceforth with the gods, as also his wife, his daughters, 
and the pilot of the boat." * 

The cuneiform tablets of the Deluge published by 
George Smith, which we have quoted in another chapter, 
confirm in the main this feature in the account of Bero- 
sus, and thus warrant its high antiquity : they teach us 
that man, saved from the great Flood, received from 
the gods the gift of immortality. Izdhubar goes to find 
him (Xisuthrus) at the mouth of the rivers, in order to 
learn from him the secret of immortality. Hasisadra 
ends the account of the great inundation by saying to 
him : ' Behold, Hasisadra and his wife, in order to live 
like the gods, have been removed ; and Hasisadra will 
dwell in a place apart, at the mouth of the rivers. They 
asked me, and in a place apart, at the mouth of the 
rivers, they have placed me." 2 

J Berosus, " Fragmenta," Fragm. 7 in " Historicorum Grascorum 
Fragmenta," edit. Didot, ii., p. 501. 

2 Rawlinson, "Ancient Religions," p. 54. 



BABYLONIAN BELIEF IN ANOTHER LIFE. 54 1 

These passages do not set forth explicitly the faith of 
the Chaldeans in the immortality of the soul, but we 
can see, at least, that the Chaldeans believed in the pos- 
sibility of man's immortality; and, what is more, they 
considered this immortality the reward of virtue. 

Other passages are more explicit. The Assyrians 
worshipped their gods, as was usual in the ancient world, 
by prayer, praise, and sacrifice. Prayer was offered for 
one's self and others. The " sinfulness of sin" was deeply 
felt, and the divine anger deprecated with much ear- 
nestness. "O my Lord!" says a suppliant, "my sins are 
many, my trespasses are great; and the wrath of the 
gods has plagued me with disease, sickness, and sorrow. 
I fainted, but no one stretched forth his hand ; I groaned, 
but no one drew nigh; I cried aloud, but no one heard. 
O Lord, do not Thou abandon thy servant! In the 
waters of the great storm do Thou lay hold of his hand. 
The sins which he has committed, do Thou turn to 
righteousness." 1 

Special intercession was made for the Assyrian kings. 
The gods were besought to grant them " length of days, 
a strong sword, extended years of glory, pre-eminence 
among monarchs, and an enlargement of the bounds of 
the empire." 2 Their happiness in a future state was 
prayed for, as the following prayer, for instance, shows : 
" May he (the king) attain an old age, and after the gift 
of the (present) days enter the feasts of the mountain 
of silver, the celestial hearts, the dwelling of felicity, 
into the light Elysian fields; may he lead an eternal, 
holy life in the presence of the gods which inhabit 
Assyria." 3 This last passage expresses distinctly 

1 " Records of the Past," vol. iii., p. 133. 

2 Fox Talbot, " Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archae- 
ology," vol. i., p. 107. 

3 " Records of the Past," vol. iii., pp. 137, 138. 



542 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

the belief of the Assyrians in the immortality of the 
soul. 

The Assyrio-Chaldean heaven is described, we are 
told by Mr. Chad Boscawen, who refers to several inscrip- 
tions, as the " dwelling of felicity, the house of life, the 
land of life." The life of the blessed is represented as 
agreeable: they rest on beds, drinking pure drinks in 
the company of their friends and their parents. The 
warrior has around him all the spoils which he has taken 
in his combats — the prisoners included — and he gives 
grand feasts in his tent. 1 

389. The Assyrio-Chaldean Belief in Another 
Life Proved by the Descent of Ishtar into 
Hell. — The most important text which has been dis- 
covered thus far on the belief of the Assyrio-Chaldeans 
in another life is that of the descent of Ishtar into hell. 
This very strange poem gives us a great number of 
details, from which we learn the theological ideas of the 
ancestors of the Hebrews. 

The descent of Ishtar 2 into Hades, perhaps in search 
of Tammuz, is related as follows : 3 

" In the land of Hades, the land of her desire, Ishtar, 
daughter of the moon god Sin, turned her mind. The 
daughter of Sin fixed her mind to go to the house where 
all meet — the dwelling of the god Iskalla, to the house 
which men enter, but cannot depart from, the abode of 
darkness, of famine; where earth is their food, their 
nourishment clay ; where light is not seen, but in dark- 
ness they dwell; w T here ghosts, like birds, flutter their 
wings, and on the door and the door-posts the dust lies 
undisturbed. 

1 " Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," vol. v., 
1877, p. 565. 2 The queen of love and beauty. 

3 " Transactions," vol. iii., pp. 119-124, and "Records of the 
Past," vol. i., pp. 143-149. 



ASSYRIO-CHALDEAN BELIEF IN ANOTHER LIFE. 543 

'When Ishtar arrived at the gate of Hades, to the 
keeper of the gate a word she spake : ' O keeper of the 
entrance, open thy gate! Open thy gate, I say again, 
that I may enter! If thou openest not thy gate, if I do 
not enter, I will assault the door, the gate I will break 
down, I will attack the entrance, I will split open the 
portals. I will raise the dead to be the devourers 
of the living ! Upon the living the dead shall prey. ' 
Then the porter opened his mouth and spake, and thus 
he said to the great Ishtar: 'Stay, lady, do not shake 
down the door; I will go and inform Queen Nin-ki-gal.' 
So the porter went in to Nin-ki-gal and said: 'These 
curses thy sister Ishtar utters; yea, she blasphemes 
thee with fearful curses ! ' And Nin-ki-gal, hearing the 
words, grew pale like a flower when cut from the stem 
— like the stalk of a reed she shook. And she said, 'I 
will cure her rage ; I will speedily cure her fury. Her 
curses I will repay. Light up consuming flames ! Light 
up a blaze of straw ! Be her doom with the husbands 
who left their wives ; be her doom with the wives who 
forsook their lords ; be her doom with the youths of dis- 
honored lives. Go, porter, and open the gate for her; 
but strip her, as some have been stripped ere now.' 
The porter went and opened the gate. 'Lady of Tig- 
gaba, enter,' he said. 'Enter. It is permitted. The 
Queen of Hades to meet thee comes. ' So the first gate 
let her in; but she was stopped, and there the great 
crown was taken from her head. 'Excuse it, lady; the 
Queen of the Land insists upon its removal.' The next 
gate let her in ; but she was stopped, and there the ear- 
rings were taken from her ears. 'Keeper, do not take 
off from me the ear-rings from, my ears!' 'Excuse it, 
lady; the Queen of the Land insists upon their removal. ' 
The third gate let her in; but she was stopped, and 
there the precious stones were taken from her head. 



544 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

'Keeper, do not take off from me the gems that adorn 
my head! ' 'Excuse it, lady; the Queen of the Land 
insists upon their removal.' The fourth gate let her 
in ; but she was stopped, and there the small jewels 
were taken from her brow. 'Keeper, do not take off 
from me the small jewels that deck my brow ! ' ' Excuse 
it, lady; the Queen of the Land insists upon their re- 
moval.* The fifth gate let her in; but she was stopped, 
and there the girdle was taken from her waist. ' Keeper, 
do not take off from me the girdle that girds my waist ! ' 
' Excuse it, lady ; the Queen of the Land insists upon its 
removal. ' The sixth gate let her in ; but she was stopped, 
and here the gold rings were taken from her hands and 
feet. 'Keeper, do not take off from me the gold rings 
of my hands and feet!' 'Excuse it, lady; the Queen 
of the Land insists upon their removal. ' The seventh 
gate let her in; but she was stopped, and there the last 
garment was taken from her body. 'Keeper, do not 
take off, I pray, the last garment from my body!' 'Ex- 
cuse it, lady; the Queen of the Land insists upon its 
removal.' 

" After Mother Ishtar had descended into Hades, Nin- 
ki-gal saw and derided her to her face. Then Ishtar 
lost her reason, and heaped curses upon the other. 
Nin-ki-gal hereupon opened her mouth and spake: 'Go, 
Namtar, . . . .bring her out of punishment, .... afflict her 
with disease of the eye, the side, the feet, the heart, 
the head' (some lines effaced) .... 

" The divine messenger lacerated his face before them. 
The assembly of the gods was full. . . .The Sun came, 
along with the Moon, his father, and, weeping, he spake 
thus unto Hea, the king : ' Ishtar has descended into the 
earth, and has not risen again; and ever since the time 
that Mother Ishtar descended into hell, .... the master 
has ceased to command, the slave has ceased to obey!' 



ASSYRIO-CHALDEAX BELIEF IN ANOTHER LIFE. 545 

Then the god Hea in the depth of his mind formed a 
design; he modelled for her escape the figure of a man, 
of clay. 'Go save her, Phantom; present thyself at the 
portal of Hades ; the seven gates of Hades will all open 
before thee; Nin-ki-gal will see thee, and take pleasure 
because of thee. When her mind has grown calm and 
her anger has worn itself away, awe her with the names 
of the great gods! Then prepare thy frauds! Fix on 
deceitful tricks thy mind! Use the chiefest of thy 
tricks ! Bring forth fish out of an empty vessel ! That 
will astonish Nin-ki-gal, and to Ishtar she will restore 
her clothing. The reward— a great reward— for these 
things shall not fail. Go, Phantom, save her; and the 
great assembly of the people shall crown thee » Meats 
the best in the city, shall be thy food ! Wine, the most 
delicious in the city, shall be thy drink ! A royal palace 
shall be thy dwelling, a throne of state shall be thy 
seat! Magician and conjuror shall kiss the hem of thy 
garment! ' 

" Nin-ki-gal opened her mouth and spake ; to her mes- 
senger, Namtar, commands she gave: 'Go, Namtar, the 
Temple of Justice adorn! Deck the images! Deck 
the altars ! Bring out Anunnak, and let him take his 
seat on a throne of gold ! Pour out for Ishtar the water 
of life ; from my realms let her depart. ' Namtar obeyed ■ 
he adorned the temple ; decked the images; decked the 
altars; brought out Anunnak, and let him take his seat 
on a throne of gold; poured out for Ishtar the water of 
life, and suffered her to depart. Then the first gate let 
her out and gave her back the garment of her form 
The next gate let her out and gave her back the jewels 
for hands and feet. The third gate let her out and -ave 
her back the girdle of her waist. The fourth gate let 
her out and gave her back the small gems she had worn 
upon her brow. The fifth gate let her out and gave her 



546 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

back the precious stones that had been upon her head. 
The sixth gate let her out and gave her back the ear- 
rings that were taken from her ears. And the seventh 
gate let her out and gave her back the crown she had 
carried on her head." 

Such is this ancient poem; singular in its details 
and some of its ideas, but important for us, as they 
attest very clearly the belief of Abraham's countrymen 
in another life. M. Oppert fixes the general meaning of 
the legend as follows : 

" The Aral, the unchangeable country, the region of the 
dead of the Babylonians and Assyrians, corresponds to 
the Hades of the most ancient Greek poets. The belief 
of the Chaldeans in another life is thus definitely estab- 
lished. They believed in a dwelling of the dead, an 
immutable country from which there is no return— a 
place of obscurity and darkness, where the souls nutter 
like birds, and where they have no nourishment but 
dust. In order to enter there, one has to strip himself 
of everything. The goddess reigning there as sover- 
eign is inexorable, even for the other gods, and particu- 
larly for Ishtar, the goddess of life." 

390. The Belief in Another Life among the 
Egyptians.— When we pass from Chaldea, where Abra- 
ham was born, to Egypt, where his descendants be- 
came a nation, we enter the land whose inhabitants, 
according to the Greeks, were the first who taught the 
immortality of the soul/ The origin of this doctrine 
is lost in the darkness of antiquity. The papyrus of 
Ebers recently discovered, which dates from the seven- 
teenth century, before Christ, and appears to be a copy 
of a much more ancient document, deals with diseases, 
the relations between the soul and the body, and proves 
the antiquity of psychological studies in the valley of 
1 Herodotus, ii., p. 123: edit. Didot, p. 112. 



JUDGMENT OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 547 

the Nile. Everybody knows to-day that the Egyptians 
always believed " in the immortality of the soul, com- 
pleted by the doctrine of punishments and rewards." ' 

391- The Judgment of the Soul after Death.— 
The belief in another life was a cardinal principle of 
the Egyptian religion. Immediately after death the 
soul, it was taught, descended into the lower world 
{Amenti) and was conducted to the "Hall of Truth," 
where it was judged in the presence of Osiris and his 
forty-two assessors, the " Lords of Truth" and judges of 
the dead. Anubis, the son of Osiris, who was called 
"the director of the weighing," brought forth a pair of 
scales, and placing on one scale a figure or emblem 
of truth, set on the other a vase containing the good 
deeds of the deceased, Thoth standing by with a 
tablet in his hand, whereon to record the result. 2 If 
the good deeds were sufficient, if they weighed down 
the scale wherein they were placed, then the happy soul 
was permitted to enter "the boat of the sun," and was 
conducted by good spirits to the Elysian fields (Aaklu), 
to the " Pools of Peace," and the dwelling-places of the 
blest. If, on the contrary, the good deeds were in- 
sufficient, if the scale remained suspended in the air, 
then the unhappy soul was sentenced, according to the 
degree of its evil deeds, to go through a round of trans- 
migrations into the bodies of animals more or less 
unclean ; the number, nature, and duration of the trans- 
migrations depended on the demerits of the deceased, and 
the consequent length and severity of the punishment 
which he deserved, or the purification which he needed. 

^ ■ Cf. de Rouge, " Etudes sur le Rituel Funeraire des Anciens 
Egyptiens,"in the "Revue Archeologique," i860, vol. i., p 73 

! Wilkinson, " Ancient Egyptians," vol. v., p. 314. Representa- 
tions of the scene are frequent in the tombs and in the many copies 
of the " Ritual of the Dead." 



548 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

Ultimately, if after many trials sufficient purity was not 
attained, the wicked soul which had proved itself incu- 
rable underwent a final sentence at the hands of Osiris, 
judge of the dead, and, being condemned to complete 
and absolute annihilation, was destroyed upon the steps 
of heaven by Shu, the Lord of Light. 3 The good soul, 
having first been freed from its infirmities by passing 
through the basin of purgatorial fire, guarded by four 
ape-faced genii, was made the companion of Osiris for a 
period of three thousand years, after which it returned 
from Amenti, re-entered its former body, rose from 
the dead, and lived once more a human life upon the 
earth. This process was gone through again and again, 
until a certain mystic cycle of years became complete, 
when, to crown all, the good and blessed attained the 
final joy of union with God — being absorbed into the 
divine essence from which they had once emanated, and 
attaining the full perfection and true end of their ex- 
istence. 

392. Embalming among the Egyptians. — With 
their belief in a future life and their opinions re- 
garding the fate of good and bad souls were connected 
very closely their treatment of corpses and their 
careful and elaborate preparation of tombs. As each. 
man hoped to be among those who would be received 
into Aahlu, and after dwelling with Osiris for three 
thousand years to return to earth and re-enter their old 
bodies, it was necessary that this body should be enabled 
to resist decay for this long period. Hence their custom 
of embalming the bodies, of swathing them in linen, and 
then burying them in stone sarcophagi covered with lids 
that it was scarcely possible to lift or even to move. 
Hence, if a man was wealthy, he spent enormous sums to 
build a safe and commodious, an elegant and well-deco- 
1 Birch, " Guide to Museum," pp. 14, 15- 



EMBALMING AMONG THE EGYPTIANS. 549 

rated tomb, either piling a pyramid on his sarcophagus, 
or excavating deep into the solid rock and preparing 
for his resting-place a remote chamber at the end of a 
long series of galleries. With the notion, probably, 
that it would be of use to him in his passage through 
Amenti to Aahlu, he took care to have the most impor- 
tant passages from the sacred book— entitled the " Ritual 
of the Dead"— either inscribed on the inner part of the 
coffin in which he was to lie, or painted on his mummy 
bandages, or engraved upon the inner walls of his tomb. 1 
Sometimes he even had a complete copy of the book 
buried with him— no doubt for reference if his memory 
failed to supply him with the right invocation or prayer 
at the dangerous parts of his long journey. 

The thought of death, of judgment, of a sentence to 
happiness or misery, according to the life he had led on 
earth, was thus familiar to the ordinary Egyptian. His 
theological notions were confused and fantastical; but 
he had a strong and abiding conviction that his fate after 
death would depend on his conduct during his life on 
earth, and especially on his observance of the moral law 
and the performance of his various duties. 2 

393. The Egyptian Belief in a Future Life 
Known to the Hebrews. -The Hebrews lived 
a long time among the Egyptians. Therefore, no 
man can doubt that the ideas of the Egyptians in 
regard to a future life were known to them. They 
saw the funeral rites themselves; they often listened 
to the description of the judgment of the souls; they 
even embalmed Jacob and Joseph according to the 
Egyptian custom, and held in honor of Jacob obsequies 
similar to those of a person of distinction at the court 
of the Pharaos. 3 How, then, can we doubt that the 
' Bunsen, "Egypt's Place," vol. v., pp. I27 _ I2Q . . C f. George 
Rawlmson, "Ancient Religions," pp. 28-30. » Gen> j 



550 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

Israelites were cognizant of the immortality of tne soul? 
If they knew it, they accepted it. Nowhere do we meet 
the repudiation of this belief. Had they rejected it, we 
would find traces of their denial in the sacred books. 
The Pentateuch reproves and condemns in detail all the 
errors and reprehensible customs of the nations with 
whom the Israelites came in contact. But Moses did 
not Avrite a word against the doctrine of the immortality 

of the soul. 

394. Direct Proofs of Hebrew Belief in the 
Soul's Immortality.— But we have also direct proof 
of the HebreAV belief in the immortality of the soul. 
They believed in it, because they regarded death 
as the punishment of original sin, and held that Adam 
and Eve would never have ceased to live had they not 
disobeyed God's command. 1 Death itself, according 
to their ideas, was not a complete and total annihilation 
of man. 2 Death, the ancient Hebrews thought, put an 
end to this earthly pilgrimage. In their sight death 
was a "returning to their fathers, a gathering to their 
people." These remarkable expressions we can read in 
all the books of the Hebrew Bible, and especially in the 
Pentateuch ; 3 they mean something more than ordinary 
interment, says Delitzsch. So also when it is said that 
the patriarchs died full of days, this expresses not only 
their disgust with the miseries of this life, but also the 
gathering of the patriarchs to their fathers. 

Hence these expressions are an undeniable proof of 
the belief of the Hebrews in the immortality of the 
soul. They distinguish very clearly death, the sepul- 

1 Gen. ii. 17; iii. 3. l 9> 22 - 

2 I. Chron. xix. 15; Ps. xxxiv. 13; cxix. 19, 54; Gen. xlvn. 9. 

3 Gen. xv. 15; xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 29, 33; Num. xx. 24, 
26; xxvii. 13; xxi. 2; Deut. xxi. 16; xxxii. 50; Jud. ii. 10; II. 
(iv.) Kings xxii. 20; Jer. viii. 2; Ezech. xxxiii. 50. 



SHEOL, THE PLACE OF THE SOJOURN OF SOULS. 55 I 

chre, and the gathering to their fathers. Infidels wish 
to make ns believe that the "gathering to his people," 
'returning to his fathers," had no meaning except 
that the patriarchs were buried in the tombs or among 
the graves of their fathers. This interpretation, plaus- 
ible enough at first sight, is contrary to the facts. 
Abraham, "who was gathered to his people," 1 was 
buried in Hebron, while his father, Thare, died at 
Haran, in Syria; Abraham's ancestors died and were 
buried in Chaldea. Ismael "was gathered to his peo- 
ple," 2 although he was not buried in the tomb of his 
father, Isaac. Jacob died in Egypt, and months elapsed 
before his body was buried in Mambre, in the land of 
Canaan; and yet Moses writes of his death, "and he was 
gathered to his people." 3 Aaron died on Mount Horeb 
and was buried there, away from every Israelite; Moses 
himself died on Mount Nebo, but the place of his burial 
was not known ; and still both Aaron and Moses are said 
to have been gathered to their people. 4 These and 
many similar texts clearly prove that to the Hebrew 
mind the aforesaid phrase meant Mat the souls of de- 
ceased friends lived on beyond the grave. 

395. Sheol, the Place of the Sojourn of Souls. 
— Not only did the Hebrews believe that death was not 
the end of man, but they knew the place where he con- 
tinued his existence beyond the grave ; and the sacred 
authors have left us a description thereof. In Hebrew 
it was called sheol (sfol), the Latin infernus, and the 
English hell. In the books of the Old Testament, which 
were written before the Babylonian captivity, the word, 
it has been found, occurs sixty-five times ; in the Penta- 
teuch alone it occurs seven times. The Septuagint version 
of the Scriptures translates the word sheol by the Greek 

1 Gen. xxv. 8. 2 Gen. xxv. 17. 3 Gen. xlix. 33. 

4 Num. xx. 24; Deut. xxxii. 50; xxxiv. 6. 



552 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

hades, the place which the Greeks assigned for the 
dwelling of the souls of the dead ; only twice does the 
Septuagint translate the word " death." Sheol is indeed 
a general term, not designating especially the abode of 
the just or that of the unjust. Hence, even in the 
Apostles' Creed, Ave say of Christ that "He descended 
into hell," that is, into limbo, where the souls of the 
just under the Old Dispensation were detained. When 
Jacob, misled by the false report given him, thought 
that his son Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast, 
he exclaimed : " I will go down to my son into hell 
(sheol), mourning." Not, certainly, into the hell of the 
wicked, since he and his son were just men. On the 
other hand, it is written of Core and Abiron, who with 
their followers rebelled against Moses, " that the earth 
broke asunder under their feet, and, opening her mouth, 
devoured them with their tents and all their substance. 
And they went down alive into hell" x — clearly the hell 
of the damned. But the Hebrew faith in the different 
states of the just and unjust in another world, and the re- 
wards that are assigned to them, is given at length in the 
fifth chapter of the Book of Wisdom, as we saw before. 2 
" In other books of the Old Testament, such as the 
Books of Kings, Job, the Psalter of King David, Eccle- 
siasticus, the Prophecy of Isaias, allusions are often made 
to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul — not of 
purpose, as if it were a matter of controversy, but 
incidentally, and, as it were, as unquestioned convictions 
that spring up naturally from a common, settled, na- 
tional belief. Indeed, so popular and so absorbing, even 
for the Hebrew mind, was the doctrine of immortality, 
that some persons, in spite of all prohibitions, grossly 
exaggerated it and fell into superstition. The Israelites 

1 Num. xvi. 31-33. 

2 Cf. Ronayne, " God Knowable and Known," p. 328. 



BELIEF OF THE ETRUSCANS IN ANOTHER LIFE. 553 

Relieved not only in the survival of the souls of the dead, 
but some among them by superstitious rites evoked and 
consulted them, and even made offerings to them, as if 
they were adorable. This practice is expressly men- 
tioned and condemned in the Book of Deuteronomy ; it 
is also spoken of in Leviticus, in the Books of Kings, 
in the Prophecy of Isaias. Sinful, undoubtedly, as it 
was in itself, as being a superstition, the practice points 
directly to the faith in the soul's immortality; it was, 
indeed, a corruption of that faith, but even by its ex- 
travagance it speaks to us of the vividness with which 
men then believed in the future existence of souls." 2 

Before the Babylonian captivity we find unques- 
tionable traces of the faith of the Hebrews in the im- 
mortality of the soul. After the Babylonian captivity 
also we find ample testimony in the sacred books to the 
Hebrew belief on this point. In all, throughout the 
ages, the same voice, in grave, strong undertones, seems 
continually to repeat : " It is therefore a holy and whole- 
some thought to pray for the ' dead, that they may be 
loosed from sins." 2 

396. The Belief in Another Life among Other 
Nations. The Etruscans.— We find this same belief 
and conviction among other nations. Among the Etrus- 
cans, for instance, over the dark realms of the dead ruled 
Mantus and Mania, king and queen of Hades. Imme- 
diately connected with these deities — their prime-minister 
and most active agent, cruel, hideous, half human, half 
animal, the chief figure in almost all the representations 
of the lower world — is the demon Charun, in name no 
doubt identical with the Stygian ferryman of the Greeks. 
At the death of man he holds the horse on which the 
departed soul is to take its journey to the other world, 
bids the spirit mount, leads away the horse by the bridle, 
1 Ronayne, op. cit, p. 329. 2 11. Mach. xii. 46. 



554 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

or drives it before him, and thus conducts the deceased 
into the grim kingdom of the dead. In that kingdom 
he is one of the tormentors of the guilty souls, whom 
he strikes with his mallet, or with a sword, while they 
kneel before him and implore for mercy. Various at- 
tendant demons and furies, some male, some female, 
act under his orders and inflict such tortures as he is 
pleased to prescribe. 

397. Belief of the Iranians. — The Iranians were 
devout and earnest believers in the immortality of the 
soul, and of a conscious future existence. They were 
taught that immediately after death the souls of men, 
both good and bad, proceeded together along an ap- 
pointed path to the "bridge of the gatherer." There 
was a narrow road conducting to heaven, or paradise, 
over which the souls of the good alone could pass, while 
the wicked fell from it into the gulf below, where they 
found themselves in the place of punishment. The 
pious soul was assisted across the bridge by the angel 
Serosh, "the happy, well-formed, swift, tall Serosh," 
who went out to meet the weary wayfarer, and sustained 
his steps as he effected the difficult passage. The prayers 
of his friends in this world much availed the deceased, 
and helped him forward greatly in his journey. As he 
entered, the angel Vohu-mano rose from his throne and 
greeted him with the words : " How happy art thou who 
hast come here to us, exchanging mortality for immor- 
tality! " Then the good soul went joyfully onward to 
the golden throne, to paradise. As for the wicked, 
when they fell into the gulf they found themselves in 
outer darkness, in the kingdom of Angro-Mainyus or 
Ahriman, where they were forced to remain in a sad and 
wretched condition. 

398. Belief of the Hindoos.— The Rig- Veda 
taught the Hindoos that " he who gives alms goes to 



BELIEF OF THE HINDOOS IN ANOTHER LIFE. 555 

the highest place in heaven; he goes to the gods." 
: Thou, Agni, hast announced heaven to Manu," says a 
poet ; which is explained to mean that Agni revealed to 
Manu the fact that heaven is to be gained by pious 
works. "Pious sacrificers," proclaims a third, "enjoy 
a residence in the heaven of Indra; pious sacrificers 
dwell in the presence of the gods." Conversely, it is 
said, that " Indra casts into the pit those who offer no 
sacrifice, and that the wicked who are false in thought 
and false in speech are born, for the deep abyss of hell." 
In the following hymn there is clear evidence that the 
early Vedic poets had aspirations after immortality : 

" Where there is eternal light, in the world where the 
sun is placed, 

In that immortal, imperishable world, place me, O Soma ! 
; Where King Vaivaswata reigns, where the secret 
place of heaven is, 

Where the mighty waters are — there make me im- 
mortal ! 

" Where life is free, in the third heaven of heavens, 

Where the worlds are radiant — there make me im- 
mortal ! 

Where wishes and desires are, where the place of 
the bright sun is, 

Where there is freedom and delight — there make me 
immortal ! 

" Where is happiness and delight, where joy and pleas- 
ure reside, 

Where the desires of our heart are attained — there 
make me immortal! " } 

399. Belief of the Greeks and Romans. — To the 
Greeks the present life was everything. According to 

1 The translation is Prof. Max Miiller's, " Chips," vol. i., p. 40. 
Cf. G. Rawlinson, "Ancient Religions," pp. 28-31, 53-54, 74-75, 
96-99, 124-126, 171. 



S5 6 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

them there is another world, but it is a world of horrors, 
and Hades was the most hated among the gods : lament- 
ing and weeping do the souls of the dead descend into 
his kingdom. Achilles prefers to be a laborer in the 
light of the sun, rather than a king among the shades. 1 

The belief in the immortality of the soul and future 
life was not confined to the uncultivated masses, for it 
was taught by the most eminent writers, poets, and 
philosophers of Greece and Rome. Socrates, Plato, 
Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Homer, Virgil, Ovid, 
and other sages of pagan antiquity, guided by the 
light of reason, proclaimed their belief in the soul's 
immortality. In Rome this belief began to weaken only 
in the time of Cicero and Caesar. Hence the former says : 

" Nor do I believe with those that have lately begun 
to advance the opinion that the soul dies together with 
the body, and that all things are annihilated by death. 
The authority of the ancients has more weight with me 
— both that of our own ancestors who paid such sacred 
honors to the dead, which surely they would not have 
done if they thought those honors in no way affected 
them ; and that of those who once lived in this country 
and enlightened by their institutions and instructions 
Magna Grsecia (which now, indeed, is destroyed, but 
then flourished) ; and of him who was pronounced by the 
oracle of Apollo to be the wisest of men, who did not 
express first one opinion and then another, as on most 
questions, but always maintained the same, namely, that 
the souls of men are divine, and that when they have 
departed from the body a return to heaven is opened to 
them — speedy in proportion as each has been virtuous 
and just." 2 

'These eloquent words," says Cardinal Gibbons, 
" convey the sentiments not only of Cicero himself, but 
1 Homer, " Iliad," iii., 276. 2 Cicero, " De Amicitia," chap. iv. 



BELIEF OF THE GAULS, ETC., IN ANOTHER LIFE. 557 

also of the great sages of Greece and Rome." 1 " This 
belief which we hold" (in the immortality of the soul), 
says Plutarch, " is so old that we cannot trace its author 
or its origin, and it dates back to the most remote an- 
tiquity." 2 

400. Belief of the Ancient Germans. We find 

the same faith and conviction among the ancient Ger- 
mans, who believed that the brave who fall in battle 
enter Walhalla, the dwelling of Odin, and continue there 
to live a life similar to their life on earth, only much 
happier. The others were thrown into the mournful 
dwelling of Hel. 3 

401. Belief of the Gauls, Britons, Lapps, Finns, 
Africans, and Americans.— Space forbids us to speak 
in detail of this belief among many other nations, 
as the Gauls, the Britons, the Lapps, the Finns, the 
African tribes, the inhabitants of South and Central 
America. About the Patagonians P. Manuel Garcia 
writes: " All believe that the soul is immortal." 4 If we 
question the Indian of the North, he will tell us of the 
happy hunting-grounds reserved in after-life for the 
brave. Cardinal Gibbons says very truly: 

; We may find nations without cities, without the arts 
and sciences, without mechanical inventions, or any of 
the refinements of civilized life; but a nation without 
some presentiment of the existence of a future state we 
shall search for in vain. Even idolatry itself involved 
an implied recognition of the immortality of the soul ; 
for how could men pay divine honors to departed heroes, 
whom they worshipped as gods, if they believed that 
death is the end of man's existence? We may, indeed, 



1 << 

2 " 



Our Christian Heritage," p. 202. 
De Consolatione ad Apollonium." 

3 Grimm, " Die Germanen. Mythologie," p. 484. 

4 Cf. P. Charlevoix, " Histoire du Paraguay," p. 238. 



558 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

find a man here and there who pretends to deny the 
existence of a future state ; but like the fool that says in 
his heart 'There is no God,' this man's Svish is father 
to his thought;' for if there is in the life to come a 
place of retribution, he feels that it will be so much the 
worse for him. Or even should we encounter one who 
really has no faith in a future life, we should have no 
more right to take him as a type of our intellectual and 
moral nature than to take the Siamese twins as types of 
our physical organization. The exception always proves 
the rule." ! 

Now, whence this universal belief in the immortality 
of the soul? Is it not the surest proof that there is an 
immortal being in us? For everything that surrounds 
us shoAvs us death and perishableness. If mankind 
always carried within its bosom the idea and belief of 
the immortality of the soul, this proves most clearly its 
reality. The world cannot be built upon a lie and a 
dream. The consensus of all men and all nations cannot 
bear witness to a falsehood. 

402. What the Hebrews and Other Nations 
Believed Revealed by Christ. — And, indeed, what 
the Hebrews had believed, and what all other nations 
had regarded as a part of their faith, was clearly reA r ealed 
to us by our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The Avords of 
Job, which must have stirred the heart of every Jew : 
" I knoAV that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day 
I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed 
again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my God. 
Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold and 
not another: this my hope is laid up in my bosom" 2 — 
these Avords of the pious Job, whereby he expresses his 
conviction and faith in a future life, AA r ere confirmed in 
a clear and distinct manner by the Redeemer in whom 
1 " Our Christian Heritage," p. 203. 3 Job xix. 25-27. 



FUTURE LIFE AND THE IDEA OF GOD. 559 

he hoped. Numberless times did the Saviour and His 
Apostles bear witness to this truth. The Redeemer 
said : " Fear ye not them that kill the body and are not 
able to kill the soul." a Speaking of the final judgment, 
He says : " These shall go into everlasting punishment ; 
but the just into life everlasting. " 2 And St. Paul writes : 
"This corruptible must put on incorrirption, and this 
mortal must put on immortality ; and when this mortal 
hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the 
saying that is written : Death is swallowed up in vic- 
tory." 3 

403. The Future Life and the Idea of God. — 
By its nature the soul cannot die. We have seen 
that the human soul is an immaterial, spiritual sub- 
stance, that is, acts as a spirit independent of and 
superior to the body, and. consequently has not, as 
the brute sensitive soul, been educed by vital seminal 
action from the potency of matter. As an invisible 
being, a spiritual substance, is one and indivisible 
like God, who created it after His image and like- 
ness, it is one and indivisible like the consciousness 
by which it reveals itself. For it is nonsense to assume 
that our spirit can be split up and divided into parts. 
Therefore the soul cannot die. 

404. Death is not Annihilation. — In fact, what 
is death? What we call death is not the annihila- 
tion of the living being, but the dissolution, the falling 
apart, of its elements. Death, if it means that some- 
thing ceases to exist altogether, is not found in nature ; 
the constituent parts of things pass into new forms of 
life and continue to live in them. Thus at death the 

1 Matth. x. 28. 2 Mattfr. xxv. 46. 

3 1. Cor. xv. 53-54; see also 1. Cor. xxii. 23; Luke x. 35; John 
v. 21; vi. 39; xi. 24; Acts xxiv. 15; n. Cor. iv. 14; v. ; Col. iii. 4; 
Philipp. iii. 21 ; iv. 3; 1. Thess. iv. 13; 11. Tim. ii. 11 ; Apoc. xx. 12. 



560 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

body falls to pieces, but no part thereof ceases to exist. 
They mingle with the earth, or give nourishment to 
other forms of nature. The dead plant is not annihi- 
lated ; it is ploughed under the ground and forms the 
manure which increases the fruitfulness of the soil 
and produces stronger life from its bosom. The same is 
true of animal bodies. A fundamental law pervades all 
nature, and this law is a law of life, not of death. 

Nothing can be annihilated even by force. One may 
grind and crush a stone to the finest atoms, but none of 
these atoms is annihilated. Chemistry can dissolve com- 
pounds into their elements, but cannot annihilate a 
single atom.. Fire, a most powerful agent, tends to break 
up everything, but when it has done its worst, gases and 
ashes remain. The mote swimming in the air cannot be 
annihilated. 

But if what we call death is not the annihilation of a 
thing, but only its dissolution into its elements, what will 
become of our soul, which is an indivisible, spiritual 
being ? Only two things are possible : either God annihi- 
lates our soul or it continues to live for all eternity. 

405. God Cannot Annihilate the Soul. — Will 
God annihilate the soul ? Astronomers agree that our 
satellite, after having been an incandescent globe, cooled 
off gradually; perhaps for a time it was able to shelter 
life, then, cooling more and more, it became a dead 
mass, receiving from the sun the melancholy light which 
it sends to us. Some day, perhaps, our earth, now so 
full of life, will again become an immense glacier. Now 
we understand these beautiful words of the poet Richter : 
" When, after thousands and thousands of years, our 
earth will perish from age and cold, when all sounds of 
life will be buried in her bowels, can the immortal spirit, 
can God her Creator, looking down upon this dumb 
globe, say to Himself when contemplating this great 



GOD CANNOT ANNIHILATE THE SOUL. 561 

field of the dead : ' Upon this glacial earth numberless 
shades have lived, have wept, doing good or evil; now 
everything has disappeared forever' ? No ; for then even 
the tortured worm would turn towards its Creator and 
say to Him: 'Thou couldst not have created me to 
suffer, and Thou art not indifferent to vice and to 
virtue; Thou shouldst not, yea, Thou canst not, be 
indifferent.' And He who gives to the worm the 
right to speak thus is the Almighty Himself, who has 
endowed us with the spirit of justice and of goodness, 
which awakens in our souls the aspirations and the 
transports of hope towards Him. 

"I am not one of those," continues Richter, "whom 
faith has touched, of those who are happy in their faith. 
I envy their happiness. ... I hold that for nations as for 
individuals, spiritualism is life, and materialism is death. 
To give to the soul a transient existence, to confine it to 
the combats and the deceptions of the present life, to make 
it perish with the matter which envelops it and which the 
soul enlightens, to forbid it to hope in a recompense, to 
forbid it to dread a punishment, to promise it annihila- 
tion, to degrade it below the molecules of the visible 
world, which transform themselves and which never 
disappear— this is to take away from man the divine 
breath and condemn him to a forced bestial state." 

" I know only one trust and one refuge," says George 
Sand : " faith in God and in our immortality. ... It is 
strange, it is almost painful, to be obliged to defend 
these doctrines ; they have been the glory of humanity. 
. ._ . Without them nations are nothing but cattle strug- 
gling for existence — according to the expression of 
Darwin, devouring one another, eating and enjoying 
themselves, and then perishing instead of dying." ' 

God cannot annihilate the human soul. Only a pagan 
1 Maxime Du Camp, " Revue des Deux Mondes," April 1 188. 



562 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

idol can do that; he, like Saturn, may devour his own 
children. God carries the fulness of life within Him- 
self from all eternity; He has created our soul as His 
most perfect work ; He has breathed into us the breath 
of life and filled our heart with the longing after it. He 
has inspired us with the thought of immortality, and has 
given it to our soul as a joyful hope; can God, then, 
annihilate our soul? Is the soul the only exception to 
the fundamental law of the world? Never; for man's 
soul crowns the universe and impresses it with the stamp 
of living truth. 

406. Why is the Law of Creation Life and not 

Death ? Why can nothing be entirely destroyed ? Why 

is the fundamental law of creation life and not death ? 
Every being the Lord formed is the embodiment of His 
infinity, a word from His mouth, taking visible shape. 
Every being is a work created for His honor and glory, 
a product of His love. Hence none of them can be 
annihilated. For no thought of His will ever prove 
false, and no word of His mouth will ever perish; He 
does not weary of the glory He receives from His works, 
nor can they show Him too much honor. The Lord will 
not withdraw a benefit which in His infinite love He 
granted to His creatures. He is not good at one moment 
to be cruel at the next. God cannot destroy the human 
soul. It is His greatest and noblest work, the most sub- 
lime thought He has realized in this world. From the 
soul He receives honor and glory. How could He 
annihilate this work of His infinite love, this soul des- 
tined to announce His greatness for all eternity? 

Look at the soul's destiny, and this truth will become 
even clearer. We need not prove that we have a destiny. 
This follows from the idea of God as our infinitely wise 
and reasonable Creator. No reasonable being acts with- 
out an end and without wishing to attain that end; God, 



man's final destiny not on earth. 563 

above all, cannot act without an end. Hence He who is 
infinitely good and wise and powerful cannot assign to 
us a destiny which we can never attain. 

407. Man Does not Attain His Final Destiny 
in this World.— Is there any man that attains his 
destiny in this world? Where are the happy men in 
this world? We can find men that are content, but 
there are no truly happy men in this valley of tears. 
Knock at the gates of the rich or at the doors of the 
poor; stop all you meet and ask them whether they 
are happy. Not a man will answer with an uncon- 
ditional " Yes! " All are uneasy and dissatisfied ; they 
begin one thing, then begin another, and abandon 
everything, discouraged. Man's eye is continually di- 
rected toward the future; in the future he hopes for 
rest and peace ; the future, he hopes, will grant what the 
present refuses him; and when the future has come, 
he is richer by a new disappointment. Again the dark 
and bitter present gnaws at his heart. Everything upon 
earth is a striving without attaining; and man's life will 
forever remain a wrestling and struggling, even when he 
has apparently reached the highest earthly good. Let us 
look at our own heart and life. Whether we stand on the 
threshold of our days or have already carried the heavy 
burden of life, can we say that we have found rest for 
our desires- some definite end, and in it our perfection 
and happiness? Everything upon earth is but a. begin- 
ning, and will always remain a beginning, even when 
we stand at death's door. 

408. Without a Future Life, Man would be 
Most Unhappy.— Now, were there no future life, we 
would be the most lamentable of beings. Why all 'our 
life? Why all this struggle, if it leads to no victory ? 
Why so much suffering for the sake of a winding-sheet 
so many efforts for the sake of a narrow graved 



564 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

If there be no future life, we have reason to envy 
the animal; if there be no future life, it is no sin to 
curse the hour of our birth ! 

"What is the most ardent desire of man," asks Het- 
tinger, 1 "the first and last wish of our soul? Ask all 
the millions who have moved on the earth since the cre- 
ation of the first man, for what did they strive, for 
what did they struggle? Ask yourself, lay your hand 
upon your own heart, listen to its innermost, its 
truest word — what does it desire ? Happiness. 'Happy,' 
said St. Augustine, 2 'we all wish to be ; and we abhor un- 
happiness, yea, we cannot wish for it.' Before man 
hears of virtue, before he knows anything of duty and 
sacrifice, he longs after happiness. Call it egotism, call 
it whatever you please — it is so. But where is happiness ? 
We have a name for it, we seek it ; it cannot be unknown 
to us altogether; it cannot be a stranger upon earth. It 
appears upon earth, accompanies us for a moment, then 
it disappears — we know not whence it came nor 
whither it has gone. Who can say that he never caught 
a glimpse of happiness? But we see it only for a mo- 
ment; then it vanishes. . . . However, man craves 
to be happy; he wishes not for momentary happiness, 
but for happiness that lasts, that never ends, and that all 
must be able to attain. True happiness must be uni- 
versal, must be eternal." 

409. The End of Our Creation. — But let us con- 
sider the question of our end from the standpoint of 
truth and Christianity. Faith teaches us that our end is 
"to know God, to love Him, and to serve Him in this 
world, and be happy with Him in the next." Men deny 
that this is our destiny; it is a fact that we have no 
other. Our soul is created for God; it is His child, His 

1 " Apologie," vol. i., 1, p. 185. 
9 " De Trinit," xiii.,4. 



THE END OF OUR CREATION. 565 

bride, and is eternally bent in love toward Him, wish- 
ing to be with Him. 

But if this is our end and destiny, do we attain it here 
upon earth? If there be no future life, we must attain 
our end here. Still, no man can reach this high destiny 
m the present life. On earth we can neither know nor 
love God as perfectly as His Being deserves and our 
spirit and heart desire; hence we do not find in His 
knowledge and love our perfect happiness. 

We know the knowledge of the truth is a difficult a 
wearisome duty for man ; and he never will know it fully 
Even the greatest mind is limited. If we can know 
God's works only imperfectly, how can we rise to the 
knowledge of His Being? If we are incapable of reading 
His greatness in His works, how can we know Him. the 
Infinite, the Mysterious? Here below we behold Him 
only in a mirror, and the thoughts of the wisest are but 
the stammering of a child. The same is true of love 
with which we cherish Him, our Creator and Father.' 
No soul truly and honestly striving to love Him 
will say that it can do this as God and His perfections 
deserve, and according to its own desires. It feels the 
distance, the abyss, which exists between its best and 
highest efforts and the end after which it strives. 

Therefore there must be an eternal life where we can 
see God face to face, as far as this is possible for our 
spirit ; where God's grace will enable us to love Him with 
a love worthy of Him, with all the love of which our heart 
is capable. Another country awaits us, in which every- 
thing earthly is completed, and in which our knowledge 
and love of God will be glorified. Otherwise, those 
who refuse to turn their eye towards Him would be the 
most happy; otherwise, those would be blessed who see 
their end m the goods of this world, and who mock and 
despise the knowledge and love of God ; otherwise the 



566 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

wicked should be applauded, and the good would 
deserve to be pitied. The virtuous must bear the pain 
and struggles of their soul, and descend into the grave 
bearing with them their grief and the discord of their 

being. 

410. Society Could not Exist if Man's Life were 
not Eternal.— The society in which we live also re- 
quires eternal life ; it must fall to pieces if the soul dies 
with the body. If there be no eternity to steady our 
present life, it must become a ruin; peace is no longer 
possible. 

To make life on earth peaceable and well-regulated, 
three factors must conspire: evil and sin, as disorders, 
must be sufficiently chastised to keep them in check; 
p-ood must be rewarded, so that men will love and prize 
it ; and virtue must be practised to lighten the pains and 
burdens of life. But these three conditions cannot be 
realized, unless there be an eternity. 

It is true that even in this life evil and sin bring 
pain and punishment to all who are so unfortunate as 
to stain themselves with them. Remorse of conscience is 
the chastisement of the evil-doer; he brings on him- 
self the contempt of his fellow-men and stands disgraced 
in their eyes. Earthly justice makes every effort to dis- 
cover crime and to punish it according to desert. But 
what are earthly punishments without the punishment 
of eternity? They cannot prevent capital crimes, or 
punish them as they deserve to be punished. 

A wicked man controlled by powerful passion despises 
the warnings of his conscience ; he can even suppress 
them for a while. When inflamed by passion, what 
does he care for the judgment of his fellow-men? 
He laughs at them and scorns their opinions. What can 
earthly justice do? Much evil and the greatest abomi- 
nations it often cannot punish. Secret sins and sins 



SOCIETY IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A FUTURE LIFE. 567 

of thought it cannot reach ; the cunning and the power- 
ful often escape its punishments. But suppose that all 
crimes were discovered by earthly justice and punished; 
the punishment it inflicts on the evil-doer, were it never 
so severe, is insufficient to chastise him according to 
his deserts. Eternal punishment is the last wall which 
surrounds and protects every other expression of divine 
justice upon earth. Without it vice would triumph over 
virtue. 

Again, virtue demands eternal life for its reward. 
The good must be rewarded because divine justice de- 
mands it and because reward animates man to prac- 
tise virtue in spite of the great difficulties with which 
the virtuous must often contend. We often hear that 
virtue must be practised for its own sake. Man will 
do nothing without a motive, and this motive cannot 
be the thing we do; it must be outside of that thing. 
The reward of a good action is the most powerful in- 
ducement to perform it. 

But can the world reward virtue according to its 
merit? No, for the world knows and hears very little 
of the good done upon earth. The noblest and greatest 
sacrifices are made in secret; the truly virtuous neither 
desire nor seek earthly reward. Must their good actions 
and sacrifices therefore go unrewarded? Besides, the 
world does not reward some virtues, for it neither 
esteems them nor holds them worthy of reward. The 
evangelical virtues which spring from the mysteri- 
ous soil of grace are despised by the world. And, after 
all, what reward can the world offer to the virtuous? 
All its honors and rewards, all its gold and silver, 
are but a slender recompense for their struggles and 
self-denial. Eternity is necessary, in order that all 
good may be brought to light and rewarded according 
to its desert. Without eternity the strongest motive 



568 THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

for good actions would be wanting, and the noblest 
sacrifices would go unrewarded. 

Again, without the hope of a better and an everlasting 
life the spirit of self-sacrifice cannot exist, and the world 
must become a desert. Even if the strictest order 
reigned in. the present life, order alone could not pre- 
serve society if men ceased to encourage and console one 
another by mutual sacrifice. Worldly glory and innate 
goodness might move some to practise heroic acts of 
charity; but to awaken and strengthen the Christian 
spirit of self-sacrifice the rewards of this world are 
inadequate. Only the thought of a higher and ever- 
lasting life can inspire us with enthusiasm for great 
deeds. Without eternity mankind, at best, would be 
commonplace; and soon would follow the reign of sin 
and vice. 

The immortality of our soul and the future life are 
our hope in every situation of life. The present life is 
but a preparation for it. Death is the gate of the life 
to come. God grant that we may there find never- 
ending bliss. 



THE END, 



INDEX. 



The numbers correspond to the sections. 

Acerotherium, Age of the, 182, 185-187. 

Age of the acerotherium, 182, 185-187; of bronze, 199, 200; of 

Elephas meridionalis, 184, 189; of halitherium, 183, 188; of 

iron, 199, 200; of mammoth and reindeer, 176; of stone, 

197-200. 
Alluvions, 161. 
America, Archaeological monuments of, 140; Chinese annals 

referring to, 289; mythology referring to, 290; records and 

legends of, 285. 

Americans, their origin, 283; their history, 285; Americans 
and the races of the world, 286; and the traditions of Central 
America, 284. 

Anatomy, Comparative, 48, 49. 

Ape, Anthropoid, 84, 91. 

Apes, Catarrhine, man's ancestors, 85, 94. 

Asiatic countries, Civilization of, 139. 

Atavism, 52. 

Arameans, Traditions of, 323. 

Ararat of Genesis, 318, 342. 

Ark, Size of, 351. 

Armenia, 318, 342. 

Art, Objects of, and human bones, 164. 

Aryans, Traditions of, 324. 

Atrophy, 48. 

Barbarism in Europe, 139. 
Bathybius, Story of the, 17. 

Bible, Chronology of, 146-149; and the antiquity of mankind, 158 ; 

and the Deluge, 340-342. 
Books, Ancient, of China, 212. 
Bone caves and osseous breccias, 330. 
Bones, Human, and objects of art, 164. 

569 



5/0 



INDEX. 



Bonnet, Redi, and Vallisnieri, Experiments of, m spontaneous 
generation, 8. 

Brain, Influence of size on the, 268-271; weight of, 270; intelli- 
gence measured by weight of, 267 ; volume of, 268-271. 

Breccias, Osseous, 330. 

Bronze, Age of, 199, 200. 

Bushmen and Hottentots, 136. 

Calculations, Astronomical, of China, 213. 

Catastrophes in pliocene and post-pliocene periods, 193. 

Caves, Bone, 330. 

Celts, Traditions of the, 324. 

Cenozoic, or new life, p. 23. 

Chaldea, Chronology of, 226-228; and the cylinder of Nabonidos, 
229, 230. 

Chaldeans, their belief in the immortality of the soul, 385-389; 
cosmic days of, 157. 

Characters distinguishing man from beast, 95, 105 ; physical, 
96-100; psychological, 106-113; characters in races not 
specific, 241-244, 306. 

China, Annals of, 214; astronomical calculations of, 213; monu- 
ments of, 215. 

Chronologists and geologists, their agreement as to the antiquity 

of man, 144. 
Chronology of the Bible, 146-149; consequences resulting there- 
from, 150; discrepancies, 148, 149; omissions, 152, 153; and 
the cosmic days of the Chaldeans, 157. 

of Chaldea, 226, 227; and cuneiform accounts, 228; and the cyl- 
inder of Nabonidos, 229-232. 

of China, 210-215. 

of Egypt, 216; chief authorities for, 217-222; not complete,. 

223-225. 
of India, 205-209. 
Civilization in Asiatic countries, 139. 
Climate, Writers on, 172. 

Climatic changes, 168; greatly exaggerated, 169. 
Color of the skin, 250-252; cause of, 253, 254; no specific char- 
acter in man, 255. 
Comparative anatomy, 148. 

Cosmic days in the Chaldean and Biblical chronologies, 157. 
Creation of man, 368 ; end of, 409. 



INDEX. 571 

Cuneiform accounts of Chaldea, 228. 
Cylinder of Nabonidos, 229, 230. 

Darwin, System of, 31, 51, 53, 60, 61 ; his view on man's descent, 
86-90 ; struggle of life, 88 ; definition of races and varieties, 
39; and Lamarck, 33. 

Darwinism criticised, 26, 35, 90, 124; is an anti-Genesis, 37. 

Death is not annihilation, 404. 

Deluge, Meaning of, 310; universality of, 333, 340, 344; abso- 
lute universality, 335 ; restricted universality, 336, 337, 338, 
344-346; aim of, 341; duration, 343; causes, 353-357; tor- 
rential rains, 354; invasion of the seas, 355; upheavals and 
depressions, 356; objections, 347-352. 
and the Biblical account, 311. 

and the traditions of the Egyptians, 313; of the Chaldeans, 
316-320; of the Arameans, 323; of the Hindoos, Iranians, 
Aryans, Persians, Celts, Scandinavians, 324; of the Ameri- 
cans, 325; these traditions compared with Genesis, 314, 321, 
326. 

and geology, 327, 328; and erratic rocks, 329; bone caves and 
osseous breccias, 330; tufaceous limestone, 331. 
Depressions and upheavals, 165, 356. 
Descent of man, see Darwin and Mivart. 
Development, Bodily, 100; embryological, 102; development to 

higher culture possible only through Christianity, 141. 
Diluvial and quaternary man, 195. 
Discrepancies in the tables of Genesis, 148. 

Egypt, Chronology of, 216, 223; monuments of, 221; Greek 
writers on, 218. 

Egyptians, Traditions of, 313; their belief in the immortality of 

the soul, 390-393. 
Elephas meridionalis, Age of, 184, 189. 
Embryological development, 102. 
Embryology, 45-47- 
Environment, Influence of, 245, 246. 
Eozoon Canadense, yj. 

Etruscans, their belief in the immortality of the soul, 396. 
Europe, Barbarism in, 139. 

Evolutionists and the difference between man and beast, 1 19-124. 
Experiments in spontaneous generation, 8-10; and Haeckel's 
monera, 18, 19. 



572 INDEX. 

Faculties of man and animals, 114-119. 

Faith and the origin of life, 1 ; and the origin of man, 70-73, 81- 

83. 359 '» harmony between science and, 73. 
Fauna, Changes of, and the antiquity of man, 174; tertiary, 58; 

of Egypt, 56. 
Fecundity, Interracial, 296. 
Flora of Egypt, 56; tertiary, 57. 
Fuegeans, 133. 

Generation, Spontaneous, 4-10; history of, 5; experiments in, 

8-10; adherents of, 11, 12; in earlier periods, 24-26. 
Genesis, Genealogical tables of, 147, 154; and natural selection, 36. 
Genus, Definition of, 38. 

Geography, Physical, and the antiquity of man, 165. 
Geologists and chronologists, their agreement as to the antiquity 

of man, 144. 
Geology and the Deluge, 327, 328; confirms the permanency of 

species, 54. 
Germans, Belief of the ancient, in the immortality of the soul, 

400. 
Glaciers, 171. 
Golden age, The, 138. 

Haeckel and the first monera, 16; his system, 30; criticised, 80. 
Hair, Character of, 256-259; no specific character in man, 257. 
Halitherium, Age of, 182, 187. 
Hebrews, their belief in the immortality of the soul, 383, 384, 

393-395- 
Heredity, Influence of, 247, 248. 

Hindoos, Chronology of, 206; literature of, 209; their traditions 

about the deluge, 324; belief in the immortality of the soul, 

398. 
History confirms the permanency of species, 54. 
Flottentots and Bushmen, 136. 
Hybrids, Sterility of, 60. 

Ice age, The, and the antiquity of man, 194. 
Immortality of the soul, see Soul. 

India, Chronology of, 205, 206; history of, 208; literature of, 209. 
Indians (American) capable of civilization, 307 ; their belief in 
the immortality of the soul, 398. 



INDEX. 



573 



Infidelity and the primitive state of man, 119-131. 

Instinct and intelligence, 115-119. 

Intelligence and reason distinguished, 106, 107. 

Intelligence measured according to the capacity of the skull, 267. 

Iraneans, Traditions of, 324; their belief in the immortality of 

the soul, 397. 
Iron age, 199, 200. 

Lamarck, 33. 

Lamarckism perfected by Darwin, 34. 

Language, what we owe to it, 109, no. 

Languages, Differences in, 272; no argument against monogen- 
ism, 273; classification of, 274; causes of the many languages, 
276; relation of, 277; and savage peoples, 275; the Mosaic 
account confirmed, 278. 

Liberty, what we owe to it, no. 

Life, 1-3, 360; development of, 29, 30; different kinds of, 361; 
highest form of, 362; organic principle of, 363; future life 
and the idea of God, 403 ; eternal life and the welfare of 
society, 410. 

Limestone, Tufaceous, 331. 

Linnasus and the classification of genus, species, and variety, 38. 

Mammoth and reindeer, Age of, 176. , 

Man, what he is, 69 ; origin of, according to faith and Scripture, 
70-73, 81-83, 359; and philology, 109, no; his ancestors, 
78; pseudo-scientific systems about man, 74-77, 81-83; 
belief of, in God, 125; primitive state of, and infidelity, 
129-132; created in a perfect state, 142; over 8,000 years 
old, 154; contemporary* with the reindeer, 177; with many 
extinct animals, 178; his existence in the tertiary and 
quaternary age, 190, 191 ; toward the end of the ice age, 
194; in quaternary and diluvian time, 195; more ancient 
than formerly believed, 203 , anatomical organization of, 
294; objections against the specific character of, 120; types 
of primitive, 198; man a social being, 302; his religious 
sentiment, 305; not limited to one kind of food, 295; can 
live under all climatic conditions, 300 ; endowed with reason 
and intelligence, 301 ; his destination, 407, 408. 
antiquity of, according to the Bible, 158; the tables of Genesis, 
146; science, 149; geology, 160, climatic changes, 168-173; 



574 INDEX. 

changes of fauna, 174-178; tertiary and quaternary findings, 

179, 180; progress of his industry, 196-203; according to the 

chronology of China, 210-215; of Chaldea, 226-232; of 

Egypt, 216-223; of India, 205-209. 
Manetho, History of, 219, 220. 
Mankind descended from one pair, 70; specific unity of, 293-299, 

its rapid increase no argument against monogenism, 279; 

fecundity of interracial marriages, 296-299. 
Materialism and the nature of man, 74. 
Menes, Date of, not clearly established, 225. 
Mesozoic, or middle life, p. 24. 

Mivart, System of, on the bodily origin of man, 81, 82. 
Moneron of Haeckel, 15, 16, 60. 
Monism, 13, 18, 20, 21, 64-68; an improvement on Darwinism, 

14; last argument of, 21. 
Monogenism, Objections to, 279-281. 
Monogenists, who they are, 239. 
Monuments of America, 140; of India, 207; of China, 212-215 ; of 

Egypt, 221-224. 
Mortillet's types of primitive man, 198. 

Nabonidos, Cylinder of, 229, 230. 

Naturalists, 33, 239. 

Negroes, many are the peers of the white man, 3080 

Neolithic age, 201. 

Organs, Rudimentary, 48, 50. 
Organism, Definition of, 364. 
Osseous breccias, 330. 

Palaeozoic, or ancient life, p. 24. 
Paleolithic age, 201. 
Peat-moors, 162. 

Persians, Traditions among, 324. 
Physical characters in man, 96-100. 
Pithecoid theory, 86-90. 

Pliocene and post-pliocene, Relation between, 192. 
Polygenism, 234, 236. 

Polygenists, Arguments of, 235; errors of, 240; polygenists of 
the United States, 237, 238. 



INDEX. 



575 



Polynesians, Origin of, 282. 
Prehistoric times and Darwinism, 59. 
Psychological characters in man, 106-113. 
Psychology of the Israelites, 370. 

Quaternary man, 180, 191, 195; findings, 179. 

Reason, what we owe to it, no; distinguished from intelligence, 
106, 107. 

Redi, Vallisnieri, and Bonnet, Experiments of, in spontaneous 

generation, 8. 
Reindeer and mammoth, Age of the, 176. 
Rocks, Erratic, 329. 

Romans, their belief in the immortality of the soul, 399. 
Rudimentary organs, 48, 50; formations, 101. 

Savage races victims of wars and invasions, 130-133. 

Scandinavians, Traditions of, 324. 

Science, Harmony between faith and, 73 ; and the origin of life, 
2, 3 ; and the antiquity of man, 159. 

Senses, The, 104. 

Septuagint, The, its venerable authority, 149, 204; and the cylin- 
der of Nabonidos, 232. 

Shame, Sense of, and the animals, 112. 

Sheol, 395. 

Shipwrecks in ancient and modern times, 287. 

Skin, Color of, 250-255; no specific character in man, 255. 

Skull, Form of, 260-266 ; custom of tying up, 262 , no specific char- 
acter in man, 261 ; subject to change, 263; influence of mode 
of life on, 264; its type in the first generations, 265. 

Soul, The, not a complexus of corporal organs, 374-377 ; and dis- 
turbances of the mind, 378 , its fate after death, 381 ; the soul 
and materialism, 382 ; its immortality and the belief of the 
Hebrews, 383-384, 393~395 ; of the Chaldeans, 385-389; of 
the Egyptians, 39°-39 2 ! of other nations, 396-401 ; its immor- 
tality divinely revealed, 402. 

Species, Definition of, 38; variability of, limited, 42-44, 60, 61. 

Spontaneous generation, see Generation. 

Stalagmites, 163. 

Sterility of hybrids, 60. 

Stone age, 197-200. 



5/6 INDEX. 

Struggle for life, 88. 
Survival of the fittest, 87. 

Tables, Genealogical, of Genesis, 147, 154; chronological, of the 
ten antediluvian kings, 156. 

Tables showing successive appearance of living things in suc- 
cessive geological periods, p. 23. 

Tasmanians, in. 

Tertiary man, 180, 181; findings, 179. 

Traditions about the Deluge, 311; among the Americans, 325; 
Arameans, 323; Aryans, 324; Celts, 324; Central America, 
284; Chaldeans, 316-320, 385-389; Egyptians, 313, 390-392; 
Hebrews, 383, 384, 393-395 , Hindoos, Iranians, Persians, 
Scandinavians, 324. 

Types of primitive man, 198. 

Unity of the human species, 233, 249; specific unity, 293-299; 

teaching of faith and science on, 73. 
Upheavals and depressions, 356. 

Vallisnieri, Bonnet, and Redi, Experiments of, in spontaneous 

generation, 8. 
Variability of species, 41-44. 
Variety, definition of, 38. 



Printed bt Benziger Brothers, New York. 



^=J=BfifiSiItP5iQ=l 



OliPl; 




